Peak oil and global warming - the Janus catastrophes of our times. Entwined and interrelated, they are equally symptoms of systemic collapse. We face the collapse of natural systems, caused by the insanity of social systems, and leading to the collapse of "life as we know it." We face major systems failure on space ship earth.
Cheerful start, but read on anyway.
I urge you to read two reports side by side. One was just released by the British Treasury Department and is the Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change. The other was released in February of 2005 and is called the Hirsch Report. Its actual title is "Peaking of World Oil Production: Impacts, Mitigation, & Risk Management." It is an SAIC (Science Applications International Corporation) and was sponsored by the National Energy Technology Laboratory of the Department of Energy.
| Summary of Stern Report | Summary of Hirsch Report |
|
Poor Countries will be impacted the worst Hundreds of millions of people displaced Food supply impacted Market failure if preparations not made |
Rich countries will be impacts the most Cost to the US economy could be in the "trillion-dollar range" Impacts will be enduring rather than temporary "Mitigation" efforts need significant lead time Volatility of oil may undermine other markets
|
Both of these issues are problems that pose immense challenges to humans and nations. The impacts of both can be moderated with immediate and significant action. Those actions require economic investments, political will, and significant changes in the way that "rich" nations live their lives. Both issues are global in scope, and neither are being successfully addressed at this point in time, and time is running out.
The global environment is being directed by hegemonic capitalism (corporate forces and an elite class) which dramatically exploits both the environment and peoples of "poor" nations while enforcing massive overconsumption as a way of life in rich nations. The structural controls of a manufactured dependency have trapped most nations into a mobius strip of environmental destruction. The "competition" in place keeps rich nations from significantly turning away from the lifestyles and societal forms which are running the world perilously close to disaster. Meanwhile poor nations are locked into exploitation of their resources and their people or face total collapse. The current system is effectively immobilizing any significant action.
Just thinking about it makes one's head hurt. We have to act, but we can't act. Nations are afraid to cooperate because they might lose their "competitive edge." In desperation, plans are put forward to try and make reducing global warming gas emissions, or rain forest destruction, "profitable." Carbon taxes .. emissions trading ... and other such "strategies" ... are trying to work within a profit-based capitalist market without "jostling" the existing system "too much." This seems patently insane to me. The current system is dependent upon an endless growth (hence endless resource) environment. However, we live in a closed system with limited resources. We live in an environment which can neither maintain or support endless growth. Therefore, efforts to continue on the current path in a "friendlier" manner only slightly slows down the destruction - at best. Ultimately, the path itself is unsustainable.
My favorite quote in this era is Albert Einstein's "The significant problems we face can not be solved at the same level of thinking we were at when we created them. " In other words, we cannot solve the problems generated by a model based on constant growth and ever increasing consumption by finding ways to keep that system in place. Following this path is ultimately fatal. That doesn't mean that there are not solutions. It does mean that those solutions will be found on a different path based on a different system.
Changing paths is scary and fraught with the potential for chaos. Changing paths requires a change of mind (we need to think and conceptualize differently), and a change of heart (we need to value things differently). Changing paths takes far more courage than doggedly fighting to an end we know is doomed. Staying on our current path encourages false hope on the surface and fatalism in our heart of hearts. Keeping that in place apparently requires increasing amounts of pharmaceuticals and "circuses." The pharmaceuticals to keep us numb and functioning, and the circuses to keep us distracted from the reality in front of our noses.
It is clear that our "leaders" are not going to "lead" us out of this morass. As usual when great change is needed, it must be we the people who lead. In this case, that "we, the people" must be the inhabitants of the planet. "We" will either meet these challenges and save the planet and ourselves, or "we" will be another layer of bones and pottery lost in the dust of time.
So What Do We Do?
Partnership:
Obviously, we need to look at our relationship to our planet and each other in a very different way. If we cannot stretch so far as to see the equal importance of each life form, then let us at least stretch as far as to see each other as partners. As partners on this planet, we view the world through mutual benefit. For those embedded in the dominant culture of the United States,that means shifting from a paradigm of win-lose to one of win-win.
The consequences of such a shift would have enormous consequences. For example, as sustainable development has moved into the mainstream, it has taken on the format of being environmentally friendlier, but not environmentally friendly. Destructive practices have to stop. Sustainability should close consumption loops rather than opening new ones. Closing loops allows for the natural processes of recycling.
Permanence and Flexibility:
We are stuck in a cycle of consumption. Planned obsolescence rules the day. This must wear out or break to force people to buy things repetitively. Forced technological development also forces "replacement" of quite functional technology. Computers and cell phones are just two such examples. If technology is not either upgradable, or bio-degradable, then it should not be produced.
Consumption's Bad. Get It?
Our current system links the consumption to personal and social status. This has led to increasing conspicuous consumption at every level. Some attribute this to greed, but it is more closely tied to fear - fear of looking bad, fear of loss of acceptance. Let's renew the value of being "thrifty."
"Marketing" has to transform itself:
Marketing has reached new heights of linking value to objects that have little value, and increasing personal insecurity an want. Marketing's focus is not to inform us of products, but to create consumers. It has been said that the biggest threat to the resolution of our environmental problems is advertising. Further, that as long as we have an industry whose sole purpose is to create consumers and expand consumptions, we will never come to terms with the problems we face (The Ad and the Ego).
There are no technological fixes:
Technology and science are not magic. Our history of technological solutions to date have largely created other problems. If we look at technology and science within the framework of the items discussed above, then perhaps it can help. However, too frequently technological advances are used to increase consumption rather than decrease it. High tech solar energy can assist us in decreasing the amount of electrical energy we us. However, high tech solar is not environmentally friendly in terms of the materials used and the processing needed to currently make solar panels and storage batteries. In the pursuit of high tech solar, the very thought of passive solar has become largely a relic of the past. Maintaining the current world view leads to "cheaper energy" will actually fueling increasing energy demands. This is similar to hybrid engine technology being used to increase power in vehicles rather than decrease fuel consumption. Another example would be that the more fuel efficient vehicles of the 1980s drove the popularity (and possibility) of the gas hogs.
Look to the seventh generation (Great Law of Peace of the Six Nations of the Iroquois Confederacy):
We have to start thinking in a much longer time frame. We need to move out of the "immediate" and into the long term. How will our choices, our technologies, our actions now effect our children, and their children to the seventh generation? We need to move beyond "this will cause problems, but we'll fix them later" with yet another round of technology. No more creation of dangerous substances that take a geological age to "recycle." No more technologies aimed at transforming the very nature of nature. Folks, we just don't know enough.
In summation, we need to get smart and we need to become wise. We have the potential for both, but do we have the will?
