Clerics Defy Ayatollah

SUBHEAD: Iran's Association of Researchers and Teachers of Qum call  recent  election illegitimate.

By Michael Slackman & Nazila Fathi on 4 July 2009 in The New York Times

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/05/world/middleeast/05iran.html?_r=1&hp

The most important group of religious leaders in Iran called the disputed presidential election and the new government illegitimate on Saturday, an act of defiance against the country's supreme leader and the most public sign of a major split in the country's clerical establishment.

A statement by the group, the Association of Researchers and Teachers of Qum, represents a significant, if so far symbolic, setback for the government and especially the authority of the supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, whose word is supposed to be final. The government has tried to paint the opposition and its top presidential candidate, Mir Hussein Moussavi, as criminals and traitors, a strategy that now becomes more difficult - if not impossible.


image above: Square in front of the Shrine of Fatima in Qum, Iran.

From http://www.luc.edu/faculty/gtezcur/Travels.htm

"This crack in the clerical establishment, and the fact they are siding with the people and Moussavi, in my view is the most historic crack in the 30 years of the Islamic republic," said Abbas Milani, director of the Iranian Studies Program at Stanford University. "Remember they are going against an election verified and sanctified by Khamenei."

The announcement came on a day when Mr. Moussavi released documents detailing a campaign of fraud by the current president's supporters, and as a close associate of the supreme leader called Mr. Moussavi and former President Mohammad Khatami "foreign agents," saying they should be treated as criminals. The specific charges of fraud included the printing of millions of extra ballots before the vote.

Since the election, the bulk of the clerical establishment in the holy city of Qum, an important religious and political center of power, has remained largely silent, leaving many to wonder when, or if, the nation's most senior religious leaders would jump into the controversy that has posed the most significant challenge to the country's leadership since the Islamic Revolution. With its statement Saturday, the association of clerics - formed under the leadership of the revolution's founder, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini - came down squarely on the side of the reform movement.

The association includes reformists, but Iranian political analysts describe it as independent, and it did not support any candidate in the recent election. The group had earlier asked for the election to be nullified because so many Iranians objected to the results, but it never directly challenged the legitimacy of the government and, by extension, the supreme leader. The earlier statement also came before the election was certified by the country's religious leaders, who have since said that opposition to the results must cease.

The clerics' decision to speak up again is not itself a turning point and could fizzle under pressure from the state, which has continued to threaten its critics. Some seminaries in Qum rely on the government for funds, and Ayatollah Khamenei and the man he has declared the winner of the election, incumbent President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, have powerful backers there. They also retain the support of the powerful security forces and the elite Revolutionary Guards. In addition, the country's highest-ranking clerics have yet to speak out individually against the election results.

But the association's latest statement does give a tactical boost to Mr. Moussavi, Mr. Khatami and the former speaker of Parliament, Mehdi Karroubi, who have been the most vocal in calling the election illegitimate and who, in their attempts to force change, have been hindered by the jailing of many of their influential backers.

While the government could continue vilifying the three as traitors, analysts say it was highly unlikely that the leaders would use the same tactic against the clerical establishment in Qum.

"The significance is that even within the clergy, there are many who refuse to recognize the legitimacy of the election results as announced by the supreme leader," said an Iranian political analyst who spoke on condition of anonymity for fear of reprisal.

The clerics' statement chastised the leadership for failing to adequately study complaints of vote rigging and lashed out at the government's use of force in crushing public protests that drew hundreds of thousands into the streets.

It even directly criticized the Guardian Council, the powerful group of clerics charged with certifying elections.

"Is it possible to consider the results of the election as legitimate by merely the validation of the Guardian Council?" the association said in its statement.

Perhaps more threatening to the supreme leader, the committee called on other clerics to join the fight against the government's refusal to adequately reconsider the charges of voter fraud. The committee invoked powerful imagery, comparing the 20 protesters killed during demonstrations with the martyrs who died in the early days of the revolution and the war with Iraq, asking other clerics to step in to save what it called "the dignity that was earned with the blood of tens of thousands of martyrs." In effect, the comparison cast the government as betraying the ideals of the revolution.

"The complaints of other candidates were ignored and people's protest, which was expressed peacefully, was violently crushed," the statement said.

The statement was posted on the association's Web site late Saturday and carried on many other sites, including the Persian BBC, but it was impossible to reach senior clerics in the group to independently confirm its veracity.

The statement was issued after a meeting Mr. Moussavi had with the committee 10 days ago and a decision by the Guardian Council, a body loyal to the supreme leader, to certify the election and declare that all matters concerning the election were closed.

But the defiance has not ended.

With heavy security on the streets, there is a forced calm. But each day, slowly, another link falls from the chain of government control. Last week, in what appeared a coordinated thrust, Mr. Moussavi, Mr. Karroubi and Mr. Khatami all called the new government illegitimate. On Saturday, Mr. Milani of Stanford said, former President Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani met with families of those who had been arrested, another sign that he was working behind the scenes to keep the issue alive.

"I don't ever remember in the 20 years of Khamenei's rule where he was clearly and categorically on one side and so many clergy were on the other side," Mr. Milani said. "This might embolden other clergy to come forward."

The committee of clergy was formed in the 1960s. Mr. Milani said that for many years, Ayatollah Khamenei also belonged to the group, and that it has since developed some political clout by backing successful candidates for national office.

As the resistance has continued, so have the government's attempts to muzzle its critics.

On Saturday, an editorial in a radical right-wing newspaper, Kayhan, that is close to the supreme leader, called for Mr. Moussavi and Mr. Khatami to be treated as criminals and foreign agents. The editorial was written by Hossein Shariatmadari, who was picked by the supreme leader to run the paper and who often knows of actions the government is going to take.

see also:

Island Breath: Iranian Regime Change 6/22/09

"Conquest of Hawaii"

SUBHEAD: "Conquest of Hawaii is a documentary showing on 7/12 at Kapaa Neighborhood Center.

By Raymond Catania, may11nineteen71@gmail.com on 4 July 2009

WHAT:
"Conquest of Hawaii" is a documentary produced by the History Channel that details the arrival of the first polynesians who created a bountiful society which was later taken over by western settlers who overthrew the Hawaiian Monarchy and later forced Statehood upon the Native Hawaiians, to Hawaii's present situation and the Sovereignty Movement. There will be talk story and discussion to follow.


image above: Detail of "A Gathering of Chiefs" by Herb Kane

The complete chronicle of Hawaii's history, from Kamehameha 

One of the most remote places on earth, the Hawaiian Islands were thrust into the spotlight of history by Pearl Harbor, and then the Pacific archipelago became America's 50th state in 1959. From the voyages of the ancient Polynesians to the current independence movement, this feature-length special examines America's tropical treasures. Meet some of the many larger-than-life figures who have called Hawaii home and examine the influence of people like Captain Cook and the legendary King Kamehameha, who used courage, luck, determination, deceit and strategic brilliance to bind the islands into one nation. Head to the Pacific for a tour of the real Hawaii, see what the islands were like before the hotels came to Honolulu, and e
xamine the roots of the burgeoning Hawaiian independence movement. Features interviews with leading politicians, historians and activists. A History Channel video, plain jacket (100 minutes)

WHERE:
Kapaa Neighborhood Center Auditorium, on Kuhio Highway

WHEN:
Sunday, July 12th, at 12 Noon

SPONSORED BY:
www.Manaoha.org

CONTACT:
For more information please call Ben Nihi at (808) 634-0469.


Agriculture & Food Crisis

SUBHEAD: Food prices have come down from their extraordinary heights in 2008, but they are much higher than just a few years ago.

By Magdoff and Brian Tokar in July-August 2009 issue of Monthly Review
http://monthlyreview.org/

[Editor's Note: this is the opening of the overview article for the current MR issue of Agriculture and Food in Crisis: Conflict, Resistance, and Renewal linked above. All images are from world-wide food crisis in 2008 recorded by www.Spiegel.de]

“Could Food Shortages Bring Down Civilization?,” asks the title of an article by Lester Brown in Scientific American (May 2009). Just a few years ago, such a question would have seemed almost laughable. Few will be surprised by it today.


image above: Pakistani women buy subsidized flour in Lahore. The price of staple foods and fuel has risen drastically in the country in the last few months. Many people in Pakistan are now dependent on state subsidies. From http://www.spiegel.de/fotostrecke/fotostrecke-30613-2.html

In 2008 people woke up to a tsunami of hunger sweeping the world. Although the prospect of rising hunger has loomed on the horizon for years, the present crisis seemed to come out of the blue without warning. Food riots spread through many countries in the global South as people tried to obtain a portion of what appeared to be a rapidly shrinking supply of food, and many governments were destabilized.The causes for the extraordinary spike in food prices in 2008, doubling over 2007 prices, brought together long-term trends, at work for decades, with a number of more recent realities.1 The most important long-term trends leading to current situation include:

• Increased diversion of corn grain and soybeans to produce meat as the world’s per capita meat consumption doubled in about forty years. As much as 95 percent of calories are lost in the conversion of grain and soybeans to meat.

• Decreased food production associated with poor countries adopting the neoliberal paradigm of letting the “free market” govern food production and distribution;

• Widespread “depeasantization,” partially caused by neoliberal “reforms” and International Monetary Fund (IMF) mandated “structural adjustments,” as conditions forced peasant farmers off the land and into urban slums, where one-sixth of humanity now lives; and increasing concentration of corporate ownership and control over all aspects of food production, from seeds, pesticides, and fertilizers, to the grain elevators, processing facilities, and grocery stores.2

One of the more recent causes for the crisis is the diversion of large amounts of corn, soy, and palm oil into producing agrofuels, the term adopted by critics worldwide for industrial-scale biofuels based on agricultural crops as feedstocks. Agrofuel production looked very appealing as the United States and the European Union sought to break the influence of oil producing countries and promote “greener” fuels (which are actually not particularly “green”).3 

In 2008 some 30 percent of the entire corn crop in the United States was used to produce ethanol to blend with gasoline to fuel cars. Estimates of how much ethanol production contributed to the rise in food prices varied from less than 5 percent, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, to upwards of 80 percent, as estimated by the World Bank.

The year 2008 also brought major crop failures, from Bangladesh to the grain exporting regions of Australia, where wheat and rice crops were devastated by drought. Scientists agree that such widespread disruptions in food production will only increase with the increasing destabilization of the earth’s climate (see discussion below). 

In addition, speculation at the local level (usually called hoarding) and unprecedented financial speculation in world commodity markets — an increasingly popular way to gamble as global stock markets plummeted — forced prices to much higher levels than they would have reached otherwise. With global food stocks at very low levels after several years in which consumption exceeded supply, crop failures in a few countries, and the new large-scale diversions of food into fuel production — combined with the longer-term trends — a “perfect storm” was created in which many people suffered greatly, and continue to suffer.

Although food prices have come down from their extraordinary heights of the summer of 2008, they are still considerably higher than just a few years ago. And food supplies, although ample to feed everyone if distributed equally, are still in relatively short supply. Today, approximately a billion people — close to one-sixth of humanity — suffer from continual and severe hunger. There are many more, possibly another two billion, who live in perpetual food insecurity — missing some meals and often not knowing where their next meal will come from. This means that close to half of all humans are either perpetually hungry and malnourished or suffering from varying degrees of food insecurity.

In the United States, even before the economic crisis that began in 2007 and the rapid rise in food prices in 2008, there were approximately 36 million living in hunger and food insecurity — an incredible 12 percent of the population without secure access to food in the richest country in the world, despite vast food production and ample supplies. Seventeen percent of its children under five years old, some 3.5 million, are estimated to be at high risk of cognitive and developmental damage as a result of inadequate nutrition due to hunger.4 This travesty occurring in the United States pales in comparison to the horrible conditions in the poorer regions of the world.

What are the prospects for the future? Are they really as dire as Lester Brown suggests? As we write this, a severe recession has set in around the world — deep and, perhaps, long lasting. It has already resulted in much more hunger and food insecurity in the United States and many other countries. How much worse can things get? Probably quite a bit, is the unfortunate answer.

Hungry for Profit
Many of the trends discussed ten years ago in the summer issue of Monthly Review, Hungry for Profit: The Agribusiness Threat to Farmers, Food, and the Environment (later issued in book form5) continue to this day:

• The disruption of nutrient cycles with the spread of capitalist agriculture and the more recent move toward large-scale, factory-style animal production facilities;

• The ecological damage caused by chemical- and fossil fuel-intensive agricultural practices;

• The great extent of consolidation (both horizontal and vertical integration) in the input and processing sectors of the agrifood system;

• Farmers increasingly working as laborers for agribusiness, often under contract to large integrated meat-producing corporations;

• The role of genetically modified (GM) seeds in consolidating corporate control over the input sector and farm practices overall;

• The difficulties presented to the third world by the various provisions of the World Trade Organization;

• The mass migration of peasants from the countryside of the third world (depeasantization), and into urban slums where there are few jobs available;

• The extent of hunger amidst plenty in the United States, with many anti-hunger organizations focusing on the most immediate emergencies, thus leaving the deeper issue of poverty unaddressed;

• The importance of land reform and the benefits of reducing or eliminating reliance on commercial fertilizers and pesticides;

• The resulting emergence of organizations within the United States and worldwide that are not satisfied with the system and are working to develop new solutions to feed communities and protect the land.


image above: In Manila, the capital of the Philippines, soldiers stand guard during the sale of government rice. With the price of rice soaring, the government is looking at ways to ensure none of its citizens starve. From http://www.spiegel.de/fotostrecke/fotostrecke-30613-3.html

Things have changed in the course of the last decade, of course. However, the basic trends continued and have become deeper and more ingrained in the system. For example, the many ecological disasters associated with conventional agricultural production have only gotten worse. These include pollution of groundwater and surface water with nitrates, phosphates, sediments, and pesticides; contamination of food; nutrient depletion on farms that raise crops, even while nutrient-rich wastes accumulate to dangerously polluting levels in large-scale animal production facilities; and increasing spread of antibiotic resistant microbes due to the routine use of antibiotics in factory-raised livestock. 

The main driving force of the agrifood system is, of course, the never ending goal of continual generation of profits. Little appears to stand in the way of a system that worships, as Rachel Carson put it, the “gods of profit and production.”

The Current Situation
This issue of Monthly Review has two parts: the first deals with the history, politics, and economics of the food and agriculture crisis — how it developed and its characteristics in selected countries. Articles in this issue by Philip McMichael, Walden Bello and Mara Baviera, Utsa Patnaik, Sophia Murphy, and Deborah Fahy Bryceson offer a mix of historical and contemporary outlooks on the underlying roots of the crisis, as seen from a variety of international perspectives.

The second part of this issue discusses the possibilities for improving systems of food and farming as well as attempts to develop more secure food supplies for all people. David Pimentel addresses questions concerning energy and agriculture while Miguel Altieri discusses better ways to grow crops, organize production, and feed people. Christina Schiavoni and William Camacaro describe how Venezuela is working to reach food sovereignty, and articles by Peter Rosset and Eric Holt-Giménez explore the struggle for food through social movements and the push for meaningful land reform.

Farming, the process of growing food and fiber crops and raising food animals, is imbedded in a larger system, often referred to as the agrifood system. This system includes all the “upstream” inputs into farming (seeds, fertilizers, pesticides, tractors, fuel, implements, and so on) as well as the “downstream” sectors (purchasing farmers’ products, processing, transporting, wholesaling, and finally retailing at markets and restaurants). 

While everyone eats food, the share of the population that is directly involved in its production declined precipitously in the industrial world during the twentieth century. A century ago, a third of the U.S. population, some 32 million people, lived on farms.6 At the beginning of the Great Depression, there were some 6.8 million farms in the United States.7 By the early 1960s this number was reduced by half — today there are only 1.3 million farms that earn more than $1,000 per year.8 There are more prisoners (2.3 million) than farmers in the United States today. At the same time, hundreds of millions of people are still engaged in farming in the countries of Africa, Asia, and Latin America — it is estimated that there are about 1 billion farmers out of a total world population of over 6 billion people.


image above: Food prices in Haiti are reported to have risen by 50 to 100 per cent in the last year, hitting the vast majority of the population -- who live on less than $2 a day -- particularly hard. From http://www.spiegel.de/fotostrecke/fotostrecke-30613-7.html

Biotech Crops
For the last fifteen years, corporations have aggressively promoted the idea that the genetic engineering of crops and seeds is the key to improving world agriculture. It is clear, however, that crops that have been genetically modified, usually by introduction of genes from other species, have so far produced no reliable increase in yields over equivalent non-GM crops.9

Since the first commercial production of GM crops in the late 1990s, opposition to this technology has united small-scale farmers, environmentalists, and public health advocates from India to southern Africa, as well as Western Europe and the United States. While over 300 million acres worldwide are currently planted in GM crops, according to industry sources, this represents only 2.6 percent of cultivated land, and is highly concentrated in North and South America. While GM acreage in China and India is expanding, most of the world’s croplands are still GM-free.10

Nearly all of the commercially grown GM crops are of two general types: either they are engineered to withstand large doses of chemical herbicides (for example, Monsanto’s well-known “Roundup Ready” varieties), or they produce one or more pesticidal proteins, derived from Bt (Bacillus thuringiensis) bacteria. Recently released varieties combine both traits, a technology known as “gene stacking.” Twenty years of claims that genetic engineering will “feed the world” by making crops more resilient and healthier have time and again proved false.

 Instead, companies like Monsanto focus their research and development on traits that increase farmers’ dependence on proprietary chemicals, while making farming more logistically convenient, hence easier to carry out over larger acreages in increasingly mechanized farms.

While comprehensive analyses of the health and environmental effects of GM crops remain relatively sparse, scientists continue to reveal new information demonstrating that the technology is inherently disruptive of cellular metabolism and gene expression.11 

Independent research is largely stifled by proprietary control over GM traits by companies that have every interest in suppressing systematic studies of the technology’s consequences, and independent plant breeding research at the state Land Grant universities in the United States is being largely supplanted by in-house corporate research.12 

Corporate influence is exacerbated by an increasingly cozy relationship between these institutions and agribusiness corporations; for example, the president of South Dakota State University, David Chicoine, joined Monsanto’s Board of Directors, and is slated to receive significantly more income in 2009 than the $300,000 salary he receives from his University.13

Seed corporations have thoroughly corrupted the land grant university mission — directly through research grants and payments to consulting scientists, and indirectly by prohibiting most independent research on GM seeds.

Disaster Transitionism

SUBHEAD: How can those of us working to manage the transition to a post-carbon world prevent disaster capitalism?

By Asher Miller on 29 June 2009 in the Post Carbon Institute
http://postcarbon.org/disaster_transitionism

If you haven't read Naomi Klein's The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism, you really should. It's an examination of how the Chicago School of Economics and its adherents have taken advantage of or created crises to further their privatization agendas.


image above: Arnold watches California economy go up in flames. Detail of Illustration by Azrainman
From http://arizonarainman.blogspot.com/2009/07/california-economy-goes-up-in-flames.html


In country after country, free market and pro-corporate devotees have used the chaos, violence, and panic that result from periods of war or economic collapse to rapidly remove price controls, open borders to global trade, and sell off state-owned industry to multinational corporations for a fraction of their true value. In the civic vacuum that ensues when people are dropped down to the lowest levels of Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs, these proverbial foxes are able to raid the hen house.

Milton Friedman, the guru of free market economics and disaster capitalism, was unabashedly candid about the role of crisis in furthering their agenda:

"Only a crisis—actual or perceived—produces real change. When the crisis occurs, the actions that are taken depend on the ideas that are lying around. That, I believe, is our basic function: to develop alternatives to existing policies, to keep them alive and available until the politically impossible becomes politically inevitable."

After reading it I'm left with one question:

How can those of us working to manage the transition to a post-carbon world prevent disaster capitalism and flip it on its head?

Call it Disaster Transitionism, if you will.

The first thing I should do is to clarify what I mean by "manage the transition." My position is that we're going to be transitioning, no matter what. In fact, we already are. The peak of global oil production occurred almost exactly a year ago; we're now on the down slope of Hubbert's peak. And many believe that the peak of global economic activity occurred in late 200, or early 2008. So we could be on the down slope of the economic peak, too, if there is such a thing.


image above: reduced size graphic from original article. Click to enlarge.

The thinking is that even if we do have a few quarters of growth, this growth will still not raise GDP to pre-recession levels. And if demand does again pick up, peak oil will quickly put the kibosh on any meaningful economic growth. The graph above shows what may be the first of a number of steps we'll take down to a much lower level of global economic activity. In other words, a Depression from which we'll never come out.

This may well be a slow-motion crash, but we should be concerned that Friedman's rules of crisis opportunity management still apply. I fear that as governments are overwhelmed with insufficient resources (due to lower tax revenues) and growing crises, as unemployment balloons and crime increases, and as we experience price spikes and shortages of basic commodities like food and, well, shoes, people around the world will be struggling to get by and clamoring for answers. What those answers will be, and who will be in a position to provide them, is of profound importance.

Are disaster capitalists and other special interest groups (xenophobes, military contractors, etc.) planning for these crises right now? Shouldn't we?

I'm deeply concerned about the risk of us jumping at dangerous "solutions" (for example, "clean coal") that not only fail to fix the problems but manage to exacerbate them. And, as Michael Klare (author of Resource Wars: The New Landscape of Global Conflict) details, global conflicts could easily cascade.

As resources and wealth shrink, and climate change is unleashed, we could well see a growing social justice crisis that makes our current, already deep gap between rich and poor look like a small scrape.


In The Shock Doctrine, Klein quotes John Robb —a former covert-action mission commander with Delta Force and a now management consultant— painting a picture of a future that looks a lot like Apartheid South Africa:

"Wealthy individuals and multinational corporations will be the first to bail out of our collective system, opting instead to hire private military companies, such as Blackwater and Triple Canopy, to protect their homes and facilities and establish a protective perimeter around daily life... That elite world is already largely in place, but Robb predicts that the middle class will soon follow suit, "forming suburban collectives to share the costs of security." These "'armored suburbs'" will deploy and maintain backup generators and communications links" and be patrolled by private militias "that have received corporate training and boast their own state-of-the-art emergency-response systems."

I don't know about you, but I'm not interested in living in that kind of world.

So what do we do? Well, to be over-simplistic, two things:

First, let's flip disaster capitalism on its head and use Friedman's words below as our own mantra.

"Only a crisis—actual or perceived—produces real change. When the crisis occurs, the actions that are taken depend on the ideas that are lying around. That, I believe, is our basic function: to develop alternatives to existing policies, to keep them alive and available until the politically impossible becomes politically inevitable."

That means spreading the word and work as quickly as possible. We need to be developing model projects (food and energy production, thriving local economies, post carbon training/reskilling, new jobs, etc.) that can be quickly replicated. And we need to provide support and coaching for individuals to prepare their own families. The more experimentation, the better. And the more communication between individuals and communities, the better. The good news is that this is beginning to happen, on both fronts.

It also means that we need to emphasize the first "step" in the Transition Town process: awareness building. We need to seed as many communities as possible. Personally, I think the most important work of national and regional Transition networks is to plant as many Transition Towns as possible.

And Transition Town initiators should be careful about skipping over step #1. It's great if you find an excited, committed group of folks who are ready to start working groups and get projects going. By all means, do that! But it's not just about having enough people to move the Energy Descent Action Plan process forward.

We need ambassadors to spur a meaningful level of awareness in the community—most especially among elected officials and key influencers—so that ours are "the ideas that are lying around." Even if they try to ignore you at first or roll their eyes when you walk away, make sure they know you're there. Make sure they remember you so that when events lead them somewhere, they are led to you.

Second, we need to infuse our efforts with a deep commitment to equity and social justice. The only way we're going to get through this transition is by working together. And I'm not talking about token gestures here: I mean, working extra hard to reach out to those in the community who have suffered most from social injustice and who will be most likely to suffer it in times of crisis. To do this, we must be prepared to ask questions, to learn, and to create room for diverse experiences and perspectives to "own" and influence our work for the future.

The stakes couldn't be higher. All the cards are up in the air right now. So, together, let's make sure the ones we want land right side up.

Investing in durability

SUBHEAD: Now is the perfect time to make a personal investment in durability, for myriad reasons.

By Guy R McPherson on 29 June 2009 in Nature Bats Last
http://blog.ltc.arizona.edu/naturebatslast/2009/06/investing_in_durability.html

Industrial society is fully committed to tossing the planet in the waste bin. The throw-away products of the Industrial Age became particular obvious after World War II, when the quaint idea of durable goods gave way to all the trappings of planned obsolescence. We invested heavily in items fabricated from non-renewable materials and specifically designed for one-time use, including now-ubiquitous diapers and grocery bags. And we made annual cosmetic alterations to every conceivable consumer product, from pens and kitchen knives to refrigerators and automobiles. Even consumer goods fabricated from renewable materials, such as wood, are routinely packaged in non-renewable materials designed for ease of discarding. The mass of transparent plastic wrap sold every day surely exceeds the combined biomass of all endangered species in the world.

image above: House collapses as plastic lawn toys shine in the sun. Photo by Juan Wilson.

At this point, there is no stopping the arc of history or the icons of industry. We're all hanging onto the roller-coaster ride of economic collapse, which is fueled by the flawed notion of never-ending economic growth. Unless you're planning to withdraw to an anarcho-primitivist society beyond the reach of the industrial world, there's little you can do, as an individual, to mitigate the damage to Earth or your wallet.

If you are planning to withdraw, please tell me where you're going, and send directions. If not, it's time to start thinking about how you and your family or tribe will muddle through the years ahead. One word comes to mind: durability.

If that wasn't the first word that came to your mind, I'm not surprised. Industrial culture has steered us, for the sake of economic growth, in the diametrically opposed direction for so long we usually fail to consider the obvious benefits of durability when making decisions about our own lives. It's time to change that pattern of thinking, time to start thinking about our own individual futures instead of the future of the empire.

First, let's consider what we actually need. Not want we want, which is the type of thinking that got us into this greed-induced mess. But what we actually need to survive as human animals. A group of students with whom I was fortunate to work last year laid the groundwork with a student- and southwestern-centric report. In this post, I focus on acquisition of a durable set of living arrangements for the post-carbon era.

Most accounts list at least three items requisite to human survival. We die within a few minutes without oxygen, within a few days without water, and within a few weeks without food. Each of these three varieties of death is allegedly painful and also uninteresting enough to merit much mention in the news (if you're going under, you might as well make a splash).

In addition to these three items, many people add a fourth: some means of keeping body temperature at a relatively stable 37 degrees Celsius. The usual approaches involve a mixture of shelter and clothing, although we've been using fire to warm ourselves for millennia and fossil fuels to cool ourselves for a few generations.

In addition to these four items, I believe a fifth is imperative: community. In the history of the planet, very few people have managed to live alone. Even fewer managed to maintain some semblance of sanity and happiness while doing so.

In this post, I will assume Earth's air will remain sufficiently toxin-free to support human life for the next several generations. This assumption likely is unmerited in light of global economic collapse and the consequent release of toxic material into the atmosphere as nuclear-power plants melt down without proper planning. But, in the spirit of my usual unwarranted optimism and our individual inability to mitigate for such a dire outcome, I will restrict my discussion of durable living arrangements to water, food, body temperature, and community. I'll provide a few examples of the investments I've made, and I welcome contributions from all readers.

The first and most important of my investments was, and is, not on my list of five items: information. After all, the more you know, the less [stuff] you need, so knowledge about surviving economic collapse is hugely advantageous. Considerable information is available at little or no cost via the local library and also Internet search engines. The usual caveats apply: much of this information is worth exactly what you pay for it, and you'll need to provide the brainpower. I bought quite a few books, and borrowed many more from the library. Aric McBay provides an excellent primer with his brief book, Peak Oil Survival.

In the absence of fossil fuels, acquiring and delivering potable water is no minor task. Although age-old technology can be used to build aqueducts, I have a feeling we'll not return to that technology in time to save modern cities. As a result, I think contemporary cities are the worst possible places to be when the grid fails.

Without access to water, it will be difficult to rally the increasingly irritated troops into constructing an aqueduct. And then there are the pressing issues of pressuring the water-supply system, and getting rid of human waste in a safe manner. For the last few generations, we've avoided frequent, large-scale incidents of disease even while using potable water to distribute humanure throughout the entire civilized world. I doubt we can retain this indulgence much longer.

If cities are unviable, at least for large numbers of people, humans will be living in towns and rural areas, as we did for thousands of generations. For nearly all those thousands of generations, surface water was abundant and potable. Because of our historical and ongoing abuses to the planet, surface water has become scarce and undrinkable.

As a result, we're left with rainwater, subsurface water, or a system of purification that does not rely on fossil fuels. Rainwater is relatively easy to harvest and use. I will not discuss the many types of filtration that can be used, but even a cursory investigation yields several alternatives, with a wide variety of costs and benefits. Subsurface water can be brought to the surface with wells dug by hand, particularly in regions with abundant rainfall where the water is relatively shallow. Alternatively, individuals can harness fossil fuels to dig wells before the ongoing collapse is complete.

Once the hole in the ground reaches the water level, a rope and bucket, hand-pump, windmill, or solar pump can be installed in the well to draw water to the surface. Life-giving water can be stored in cisterns, preferably far enough above the delivery point(s) to use gravity for pressure. Obviously, scaling up the acquisition and delivery of water to a few thousand people on the planet poses a serious problem. Scaling up to nearly seven billion human beings is almost certainly hopeless.

Water conservation is certain to come back into vogue. When we realize how precious water is, we will start using it more wisely. I suspect we'll become far more accustomed to the smell of the human body again, and I doubt we'll be using potable water as a vector for transmitting feces throughout the local area. A decent composting toilet is a great personal investment, especially if everybody in your neighborhood follows suit. At the mud hut, we have invested in rainwater-harvesting gutters and cisterns, a 3,000-gallon cistern for drinking water enclosed in a cinder-block wall, solar pump (with some backup parts), cast iron hand pump, and composting toilets. The entire set of materials and labor, including the cost of drilling a new well, cost less than a new car. Given the primacy of water to, well, every living thing, this investment is our most important one.

Food is similarly problematic for large numbers of people in the absence of fossil fuels for production and delivery. The industrial agricultural model relies heavily on inexpensive fossil fuels for manufacturing and applying fertilizer, pesticides, and water, and then again for harvesting, processing, and delivering food. In the United States, each calorie of food requires ten calories of fossil fuels, and the typical piece of produce travels 1,500 miles before reaching the grocery store. Obviously, this model of food production and delivery will not persist long into the future. And that's a good thing, since industrial agriculture is simultaneously killing us and the planet.

Assuming cities manage to secure water for their citizens, they will have profound difficulties acquiring and distributing food. Again, small towns and tribal collectives present significant advantages relative to modern cities. Intensive organic agriculture, which can be practiced locally with no fossil-fuel inputs, can produce food for four to six people on each cultivated acre, which is approximately 10 to 20 times the productivity of contemporary industrial agriculture. The resulting food is well-matched to the local environment and it need not undergo significant processing or travel great distances prior to consumption. As with water, however, scaling up the production and delivery of food to billions of human beings seems highly unlikely. As with water, I doubt the near future will see us wasting a large fraction of our food, as we do today.

Our investments include ample time with shovels at the mud hut. We also invested in seeds and seedlings, hardware cloth to protect trees and planting beds from pocket gophers, and compost and horse manure to mix with the native soil. We picked up free, hand-me-down composting bins for our organic material, and we installed a water-delivery system throughout the orchard and garden areas. Gutters collect water, and inexpensive cisterns store the water harvested from the roofs of the straw-bale house and the old mobile home; the stored water is applied to the garden beds.

We built a fowl coop from straw bales and leftover corrugated roofing tin, and filled it with day-old chicks and ducklings that now provide several eggs each day. I've constructed a goat pen, and soon will build a predator-proof goat run. The goats will provide milk, hence butter, yogurt, and cheese.

Food will be stored in a root cellar, as well as in a deep-chest freezer powered by the off-grid solar system and a multitude of surprisingly expensive canning jars. Fruits and vegetables will be canned in the old-fashioned, wood-fired cook stove in the outdoor kitchen. Finally, I have rifles and a shotgun from my youthful days of hunting, and ample ammunition to harvest the occasional deer or javelina meandering onto the property.

Echoing the way we treat water from the taps and food at the grocery store, we take for granted clothing and structures that maintain the temperature of our bodies. Nearly all modern clothes contain petroleum, and the systems of producing fabrics, stitching them into clothing, and delivering the clothes to users all depend heavily on fossil fuels. As with clothes, we rarely question the fossil-fuel-intensive heating and cooling systems that maintain buildings at a comfortable temperature. Given the near-term demise of broad-scale access to fossil fuels, we will have to make other arrangements to maintain the temperature of our bodies.

As with water and food, cities are poorly suited for temperature regulation. Once the stores are picked clean of clothing, living in areas dense with human beings likely will pose significant dangers, including maintenance of body temperature at a constant 37 C. Individuals and small groups of individuals will rely on simple, archaic techniques such as wearing layers of clothing and hats for personal warmth. (You thought your civilized ancestors wore hats as a fashion statement?) Hand-me-downs will come back in fashion, and we will pay close attention to maintenance of our bedraggled pants and shirts. (I'm sure you remember this one, although you probably haven't applied it directly for a while: A stitch in time saves nine.)

There is much information to consider in the arena of body temperature, and specific topics range from insulating buildings to layering socks. A healthy dose of common sense, a bit of thinking outside the proverbial box, and a couple books by Cody Lundin are particularly valuable in this regard.

In a grand stroke of extravagance, we built a straw-bale house with superb insulation, passive solar heating (supplemented rarely with a small wood stove), and geothermal cooling. We pulled off this trick only by living frugally during a multi-decade, decently compensated career and then by cashing in our suburban home and everything else we owned, including life-insurance policies and retirement accounts. I bought a few pair of study work books, several pair of Carhartt pants (renowned for their durability), and plenty of sewing needles and strong thread.

I suspect community is the least regarded, yet most important, characteristic for the post-carbon era. All other preparations become moot if your neighbors take your water and food because they don't like you, or don't know you. Ready access to cheap fossil fuels has allowed us to ignore or disrespect people in close proximity while creating electronic "networks" of "friends." That problem's about to take care of itself.

A durable set of living arrangements necessarily includes substantive bonds between neighbors. If we are to thrive in the years ahead, we will need to share water, food, shelter, clothing, knowledge, stories, humor, and entertainment with the people in our community. I doubt we'll readily tolerate the kinds of behaviors exhibited daily by the typically hyper-indulgent twenty-something in contemporary America. People who do not make a positive contribution to durable communities face a never-ending struggle with thirst and hunger in the perennially too-hot or too-cold years ahead.

My investment in community is ongoing, as I have described many times on this blog. I was fortunate to have the opportunity to develop a tenancy-in-common agreement with friends who have been valued members of their (and now my) rural community for several years. During the last two years, I have applied considerable elbow grease, my limited knowledge, and as much tact as I'm capable of mustering. I know these investments are necessary, and I hope they are sufficient, to get us through the challenging years ahead.

Durability has always been a wise investment. Now is the perfect time to make a personal investment in durability, for myriad reasons. For one thing, most sellers still think fiat currency is valuable.

Rocket’s Red Glare?

SUBHEAD: Celebrating the 4th of July—that revolution that gave birth to our nation by exerting people power.

By John Schettler on 01 July 2009 in The Writing Shop - 
http://www.writingshop.ws/html/rocket_s_red_glare.html

It’s that time again, as the second quarter fizzles out and Americans reach the mid year fest we call the “fourth”—Independence Day, the commemoration of the founding of our nation by a group of daring dissidents, yes, a bunch of free thinking liberals from the Northeast, who dragged along their Southern colonial compatriots by compromising on the issue of slavery.


image above: Francis Scott Key coined the phrase the "rocket's red glare" after the British fired rockets against the U.S.

They huddled in a humid courthouse in Philadelphia, in a slow, grinding debate before they finally reached consensus and penned their names to a declaration. These United States would no longer be beholden to the King of England, but would declare themselves to be a free and independent nation.

After asserting those “unalienable” rights of mankind, our declaration then labored to define government as the creation and agent of the people. The entire second paragraph of the declaration cemented this idea, and made it abundantly clear that should government ever fail to deliver on its primary charge of securing our rights and wellbeing it was the privilege and mandatory responsibility of the people to correct that situation. 

“To secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government…when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security.”

These assertions were not made as mere justifications for what the Founding Fathers were about to do in separating from the British Crown, they were also meant as both a warning and clarion call to future generations, urging them to be mindful of what government does and cognizant of whom it serves.

This year the 4th of July will be strangely quiet, at least in my region of the country, (California). Budget strapped cities and towns have all cancelled their fireworks displays to save much needed funds. Fire danger has led to the banning of smaller fireworks one often hears popping and crackling on the streets, or along the beaches. As the 8th largest economy in the world, California is at the leading edge of this bank induced Recession/Depression that has gripped the nation in its icy fist. In lieu of the traditional fireworks, my town is rolling out a barbecue, also an American tradition on the 4th, and they are holding a little town play in a park where actors will play at Franklin, Jefferson and Adams.

How odd to think that when one quotes the words of these great men, or references passages from our own declaration of independence or bill of rights, there is a segment of our government out there that is quietly disturbed by this, and takes notice. In some ways they might see this as seditious behavior! Quote Jefferson and you could be flagged as a potential threat to “the state.” Such words were, after all, framed in the minds and spoken on the lips of dissidents, revolutionaries, upstarts. They were men who had the insight and moral strength to see wrong, oppose it, and courage to make that opposition a real and tangible action. Indeed, they flat out ended the governance of Great Britain over the American colonies, and started over.

Americans get all gushy on the 4th of July. They display flags, don their old military uniforms, hold parades and fire off those rockets—but this year we will be a humbled and chastened nation as we celebrate our founding. We look at ourselves, after generations of largesse, and wonder what our future holds now .

What would Franklin, Jefferson and Adams think of our nation today, I wonder? How would they view an organization like the “Federal Reserve,” private bankers with the power to issue credit and create currency at their whim—by the trillions. How would they view the allocation of more dollar resources in a single year to banks and financial institutions than our government has spent in all its previous history? For what? To pay off broken investment deals made by the wealthy—that top 1% who control nearly 50% of all financial resources in this country now. 

And worse, to pay off shadowy foreign wealth centers, foreign banks and sovereign funds. And what would the Founders think to learn that while this tremendous allocation of funds was being made by a largely unregulated Federal Reserve, with the government complicit, all across the nation people were having their homes seized by banks after the explosion of rigged mortgages, seeing banks cut and freeze their access to credit, impose usurious interest rates of 30% or higher. 

They would see how the financial “services” industry has choked off business credit lines as well, while millions and millions of Americans lose their jobs and join the ever swelling ranks of the unemployed. They would see a nation that has become the biggest debtor in the world, relying on daily loans from places like China and Japan to simply make the interest payments on this debt. They would see the hunger in America, the homelessness, the lack of adequate health care for over 40% of our citizens. And while this is going on, what would they think of the fact that our nation has built over 700 military bases on foreign soil, and has the bulk of its armed forces deployed abroad in a vast archipelago that costs us over half a trillion dollars each year to sustain?

Quite frankly, I believe Franklin, Jefferson, Adams, and all their cohorts, would plainly see the reality of what we have become—a nation no longer “of the people, by the people and for the people,” but a complex system of financially engineered power structures that exist solely to serve the moneyed interests of the banks and the wealthy investor class. These institutions, deemed “too big to fail” are now liberally and brazenly supported by the federal government, and the “Fed” to the tune of over $13.8 trillion dollars, (some say much more). They would see this in a heartbeat, know it to a certainty, and there would be no “spin” in what they chose to say or do about it were the matter given to their able hands, hearts and intellects once again.

I have little doubt that Jefferson’s pen would be busy as before, urged on by Franklin and Adams to lay out a list of offenses and transgressions that required redress. The ire of their hearts and minds would not be vented on the King of England, or even the government in Washington, but first against the dark heart and soul of what we have become—a nation mortgaged to Citibank, BofA, JP Morgan Chase and manipulated by a royal financial caste bred in the lavish halls of Goldman Sachs. 

This is truth. This is reality. Any sense you may have that we have free and fair elections and a government that exists to secure our rights and needs is pure theater, a fiction spun out by media centers that are again wholly owned by powerful corporations and wealth centers. The eloquent clauses that opened our original declaration would be invoked again, and incisively pointed at the heart of these money centers, the brokers of phantom securities, swaps, and derivatives, in a never ending flow of dark finance that few, if any, really understand. Do you doubt it?

We gave into the hands of these wealthy men the solemn charge of securing the wellbeing of our future—and they have botched the job. The funds allocated thus far to bailing out their malfeasance and greed have already consumed the future of generations of Americans yet unborn. So I ask you, what would Franklin, Jefferson and Adams say and do were they to witness our situation today as a nation? I have little doubt that the first order of business would be to take a horse whip to anyone in government beholden to banks and financial institutions. 

They would abolish the Federal Reserve in a heartbeat, and restore the power to create currency to the government where our construction says it must reside. They would properly re-allocate our financial resources for the sole benefit and wellbeing of our citizens, and not the wealthy few who command so much and who have failed us so badly. They would recall our vastly dispersed armies on foreign soil and scale down deployments at home. They would forbid moneyed interests to lobby our Senators and Representatives, effectively buying their votes, and ruthlessly drum out corruption in the people’s chambers. They would work feverishly to re-establish and support a press that was free of control by corporate masters. And this would just be their starting point.

But it is really fruitless to ask, as I have here, what Franklin, Jefferson and Adams would do?The question is: what will we do? Where are the good men now? In what humid rooms do they meet to organize opposition to the power centers that have largely bought and mortgaged away our government and our future? And are you one of them? 

Such thoughts and expressions might be permitted still under our constitution, but would certainly be deemed “revolutionary,” by the powers that be and the Orwellian organizations that have been spawned in recent years with names like NORTHCOM, FEMA, and our beloved Department of Homeland Security. They would be seen as the words of dangerous dissidents, terrorists in the making, who dare oppose generations of invested wealth, and the accumulation of real power into fewer and fewer hands through the “miracle of compounded interest.” The dollar itself was once called “almighty.” 

Consider now the power of men who can create dollars at their whim. It is they who now run this nation, quite openly, and at the very highest levels. They come from Wall Street investment houses and large private banks and they staff our Treasury Department, who’s job it is now to look to the wellbeing of those very same banks. No president gets elected in this country without their monetary support and their willing consent. You though your vote decided that, last November and brought “Change.Gov” to the White house. 

Instead you got Summers, Geithner and Rubin—all in league with Bernanke and the Fed, and the beat goes on. Paulson is writing his memoirs and waiting for a book deal. The faces may have changed, but the policy remains the same—look to the interest of the wealthy power centers—the banks. This is the end the resources of America now serve—now no longer rooted in real assets of value, but simply pixilated dollars conjured into being by the Federal Reserve.

What we need now is a new miracle, and one that properly restores and re-defines the reason we called ourselves a new nation dedicated to securing the rights of all “equal” men. Sounds a tad like a communist manifesto now, doesn’t it--Equal men and women? Oozes with leftist socialism, this strange idea that a nation’s resources and wealth should be directed to the wellbeing of all its citizens, not its banks and investor class. We have learned, in so many ways, (as Orwell put it), how “Some animals are simply more equal than others” in our society. Dat’s da way it is.

So the rockets red glare will not be gleaming in the skies this fourth of July, with so many of our cities and towns grown dark and silent, struggling to find resources to simply provide basic services like water and trash and police/fire protection now. There is no money for schools, health care, job programs, business, and certainly no more money for you to finance that new car—your FICO score just won’t do any more, tisk, tisk. There’s no money for food programs, affordable housing, clean water, renewal of our roads, rails, bridges, power systems. Yet there were trillions of dollars readily made available to all the big banks at the stroke of a pen, at the push of a digital keystroke, amen

This is the America we let happen all around us while we busied ourselves with the blue light specials at K-mart. This is the America we bought at 29.99% interest at home depot, and then re-financed in an interest only Option ARM rigged to explode like an IED. This is the America we delivered to the hands of the wealthy so they could chop it up and sell it off as a “security,” and all while we watch American Idol and Survivor on our wide screen plasma. The “you want it, you got it” society we built here on credit created from nothing has made us comfortable, but we have paid much more than a high interest rate for the life style we enjoyed so long. Just ask Franklin, Jefferson, and Adams. They will tell you what you paid, if you do not already know it.

Now what will you do about it? Blogger Karl Denninger offered up his idea in a recent post. He advised consumers to go on a strike, buying nothing but essentials until our demands are met. The list of demands was spot on: Round up all the fraudsters and prosecute, restore Glass-Steagall to regulate the financial industry, stamp out insider stock trading, withdraw all government bailout of financial institutions and let insolvent banks fail, audit the fed, jail government officials in collusion with banks, stop deficit government spending. 

To this I might add: purge all bank and Wall Street insiders from government posts, end the securities & derivatives trading game, abolish the Federal Reserve and restore money creation to the Government, restore the gold standard to back up our dollars, impose a limit of two terms for all Representatives and Senators (ending the “Senator for life” game paid for by big corporate donations), make lobbying a Senator or Representative a crime, prohibit campaign donations of any kind and have all elections paid for by a government fund. (If we can toss off billions for banks without blinking , we can do this easily enough), restrict imposition of interest on any loan to a ceiling of 10%, reform the mortgage industry to create fair affordable lending, severely regulate Wall Street, abolish short selling on the markets, (you only make money when a company stock goes up—not down—ending the stock casino trading games.) Severely regulate banks and the credit card industry—now, not a year and a day from now.

The inability of people to afford anything but necessities may soon make this consumption fast a de facto occurrence. Denninger’s heart, and head, are in the right place, but I’m afraid it may take a good deal more than a collective Ghandi-inspired consumption strike to accomplish even a fraction of those demands. He saw this consumption strike as a lawful means of exerting people power, but re-read that declaration again—the United States is not the Federal government, it is the people, and it is in the will of the people that all lawful power resides in this country. If the people were to rise and demand all the above, and our government tried to pull an Ahmadinijad and set troops against the people, that government would be perpetrating a high crime against the United States—the people, and not the other way around. 

Is this revolutionary talk? Not in the slightest. It’s just how America was founded, and it’s what we’re supposed to be celebrating every 4th of July—that revolution that gave birth to our nation. Will it come to revolution again if Change.Gov doesn’t start really delivering on what it promised?

The Gestapo Food Act

SUBHEAD: Another so-called food safety bill that must be stopped at all costs.

H.R. 2749, Must Be Stopped

By The Pen (
activist.thepen@gmail.com) on 30 January 2009 -
Here we have yet another phony food safety bill, which does NOTHING but grant the FDA massive new police powers without actual policy oversight. And it would do NOTHING to solve the actual problem, the stinking cesspools which call themselves "modern" factory farms, the SOLE source of whatever filth there is in our food supply. We don't need burdensome new tracing regimes to drive small farmers out of business, we already know exactly where the problem is.

H.R. 2749 would give some FDA administrator (read self-serving corporate lobbyist) the power to dictate what farming practices must and must not be used nationwide (read enforced GMOs, growth hormones, and weird chemicals in our food). How can Congress make sane policy without identifying the specific problem and its source before empowering 10 year criminal sentences and $100,000 fines? It can't.


image above: Detail of photo from http://theiratedog.blogspot.com/2009_06_01_archive.html

But only if we stop them from doing it, by speaking out now.

Stop HR 2749 Action Page: http://www.peaceteam.net/action/pnum996.php

This hideously ill-conceived bill (unless you are a chemical food conglomerate) is so terminally vague about what its PURPOSE is, it can only do massive harm and no good whatsoever. Aren't bills in Congress supposed to start with some kind of preamble, something
like, "This is the problem we have identified, and this is what has to be done to fix it and WHY." No such forethought in HR 2749, just unlimited and unaccountable new police state powers, while President Obama continues to appoint the WORST possible nominees for just about every administrative position.

It's time to wake up folks. It's just one corporate power grab hand over fist out there. Not ONE major bill has Congress passed yet since the last election that did ANYTHING to confront the actual real problem. Credit card so-called reform was some kind of sick joke on
the American people, rejecting the only provision that actually mattered, constraining usurous interest rates. Has anybody seen any BIG savings on their credit card bills yet? Did we have to ask?

And they TRYING to do the same thing with health care reform, to do nothing to disturb the existing corporate medical industry gravy train. It is ONLY because of the alerts we have done on this already that single payer is actually getting a hearing. What kind of lunacy is it when the plan supported by a majority of the American people is not even allowed in the room? It's the lunacy that happens when more of us do not speak out more often. And we'll have another alert on that later in the week.

Stop HR 2749 Action Page: http://www.peaceteam.net/action/pnum996.php

But for today, please speak out against HR 2749. Tell Congress to directly regulate factory farms and them ONLY. That's all that has to be done. And anything else they do that does NOT do that by definition will only make the problem worse, by punishing those who are NOT huge, filthy, factory farms.

And when you submit the action page you will have an opportunity from the return page to request a free gift with your donation of any amount to help help support our progressive activist work. Not only are the very popular "CONVICT DICK & W" caps available there, we are making available AGAIN, both the Impeachment Play dvds from the production in San Francisco last summer, and also the special Dennis Kucinich pocket constitutions, commemorative of his heroic presidential candidacy in 2008.

Or you can request any of those items directly from this page

Progressive Activist Gift Page:
http://www.peaceteam.net/all_gifts.php

And yes, you can also respond to this action through the new Twitter gateway. Just send the following Twitter reply, and add any personal comment you like.

@cxs #p996

And if you want a step by step explanation of how to set up the Twitter thing here is the link for that.

Twitter Activism Step-By-Step: http://tcxs.net/step_by_step.php

Please take action NOW, so we can win all victories that are supposed to be ours, and forward this alert as widely as possible.

If you would like to get alerts like these, you can do so at http://www.peaceteam.net/in.htm

Or if you want to cease receiving our messages, just use the function at http://www.peaceteam.net/out.htm

Backing off web censorship

SUBHEAD: China postpones web-filtering software amid protests.

By Mark Lee on 30 June 2009 in Bloomberg News -
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=afznMNIlt0XQ

[Editor's Note: Only computers using Microsoft Windows operating system are targeted. Macintosh OSX and Linux systems are not currently affected by Green Dam Youth Escort software.]

China postponed tomorrow’s deadline for personal-computer makers to include a state-backed anti- pornography software on new PCs after U.S. officials and business groups urged it to scrap the rule.

The government is delaying mandatory installation of the Green Dam Youth Escort software after PC makers demanded more time, the Beijing-based Ministry of Industry and Information Technology said in a statement on its Web site today.


image above: Chinese using computers to access the interent.
From http://chinadigitaltimes.net/china/censorship/

Business groups representing U.S. technology companies including Hewlett-Packard Co., Dell Inc. and Microsoft Corp. told Premier Wen Jiabao last week that Green Dam may undermine computer security. The software, which the Chinese government said is designed to block pornographic sites, also limits access to political content, tightening censorship of the world’s biggest Web market by users, university researchers said.

“The worry is it could compromise the user experience, if it really does create an unstable system, and raise concerns about security,” Bryan Ma, vice-president at research company IDC in Singapore, said before the announcement. “There will be a few hiccups along the way as PC vendors struggle to adjust their logistics and production processes.”

The ministry is soliciting opinions to improve the pre- installation plan, and didn’t say if it had set a new deadline. The ministry will keep providing a free version of the software and install it in PCs in schools and Internet cafes.

‘Barrier to Trade’

The Information Technology Industry Council, whose members include Hewlett-Packard, Dell and Microsoft, was among 22 industry groups in North America, Europe and Japan that signed a letter to Wen urging the government to review the software requirement, citing concerns on freedom of information and computer performance.

China should revoke its mandate for the software, which poses a “possible barrier to trade,” U.S. Trade Representative Ron Kirk said June 24. Kirk and Commerce Secretary Gary Locke said in a joint letter to Chinese officials last week the software adoption may violate World Trade Organization rules.

The Green Dam program blocks anti-government Web sites, in addition to pornographic material, and will impair computer performance by making machines more prone to security breaches, according to a June 11 report by researchers at the University of Michigan.

Largest Web Market

Government control of the Internet will be increased through the implementation of Green Dam, a “substandard product” developed by companies with little experience in such software, according to a June 12 report by OpenNet Initiative, which includes researchers at the University of Cambridge, University of Oxford and University of Toronto.

The industry ministry said in its statement today that the software is for the public good and doesn’t infringe on trade, technology or privacy issues and complies with WTO regulations. The program doesn’t obstruct the free flow of information, it said.

China, which passed the U.S. last year as the world’s biggest Internet market, had 316 million Web users at the end of March, the state-owned Xinhua News Agency reported in April, citing Xi Guohua, vice minister of industry and information technology.

Lenovo Group Ltd. and Acer Inc. are among vendors which have agreed to ship the software. Palo Alto, California-based Hewlett-Packard and Dell, the world’s two biggest PC makers, have said they are reviewing the requirement.

“We’ll continue to advise customers worldwide about widely available Web-filtering software that has been thoroughly tested and we know performs well on Dell computers,” Round Rock, Texas-based Dell said in an e-mailed statement today.

Hewlett-Packard said in an e-mail it is working with the ITI trade group “to seek additional information, clarify open questions and monitor developments on this matter.”

Peak Oil and Food Supplies

SUBHEAD: Today there are about 470 people per square kilometer of arable land.

By Peter Goodchild on 29 June 2009 in Countercurrents.org
http://www.countercurrents.org/goodchild290609.htm

Only about 10 percent of the world’s land surface is arable, whereas the other 90 percent is just rock, sand, or swamp, which can never be made to produce crops, whether we use “high” or “low” technology or something in the middle. In an age with diminishing supplies of oil and other fossil fuels, this 10:90 ratio may be creating two gigantic problems that have been largely ignored.

The first is that humans are not living only on that 10 percent of arable land, they are living everywhere, while trucks, trains, ships, and airplanes bring the food to where those people are living. What will happen when the vehicles are no longer operating? Will everyone move into those “10 percent” lands where the crops can be grown?


image above: Farm family on fertile land. From http://www.ers.usda.gov/Publications/eib24/

The other problem with the 10:90 ratio is that with “low technology,” i.e. technology that does not use petroleum or other fossil fuels, crop yields diminish considerably. As David Pimentel showed in 1984 in his “Food and Energy Resources,” with non-mechanized agriculture, corn (maize) production is only about 2,000 kilograms per hectare, about a third of the yield that a farmer would get with modern machinery and chemical fertilizer. If that is the case, then not only will 100 percent of the people be living on 10 percent of the land, but there will be less food available for that 100 percent.

Incidentally, my use of Pimentel’s study of corn is mainly due to the fact that, although his analysis is only a small and limited one, it provides a handy baseline for other studies of population and food supply. In general, a vegetarian diet requires far less of the world’s resources than a carnivorous one, although I have my doubts about the dietary wisdom of avoiding meat entirely. More specifically, corn is one of the most useful grains for supporting human life; the native people of the Americas lived on it for thousands of years. Corn is high-yielding and needs little in the way of equipment, and the more ancient varieties are largely trouble-free in terms of diseases, pests, and soil depletion. If it can’t be done with corn, it can’t be done with anything.

Actually, of course, there is a third problem that arises from the first two. This is the fact that if 100 percent of the people are living on 10 percent of the land, then the land may have so many people, roads, and buildings on it that a good deal of that land will be unavailable for farming. This problem of disappearing farmland is certainly not a new one; for centuries it seemed only common sense to build our cities in the midst of our paradises.

Let us play with some of these numbers and see what happens. These are only rough figures, admittedly, but greater accuracy is impossible because of the question of how one defines one’s terms, and even more by the fact that everything on this poor planet is rapidly changing. The present population of the Earth is about 7 billion, but there is no point in being more specific, since the number is increasing daily. Nevertheless, 7 billion should be a large enough number to make us seriously consider the consequences. (What other large mammal can be found in such numbers?) When I was born, in 1949, there were less than 3 billion, and it amazes me that this jump is rarely regarded as significant. These 7 billion people in turn live on only about 29 percent of the surface of the Earth, i.e. on dry land, which is about 148 million square kilometers.

Of that 148 million square kilometers, the arable portion, as I said, is only about 10 percent, or 15 million square kilometers. If we divide that 15 million square kilometers into the present figure for human population, we arrive at a ratio of about 470 people per square kilometer of arable land.

Is that last ratio a matter for concern? I would think so. A hard-working (i.e. farming) adult burns about 2 million kilocalories (“calories”) per year. The food energy from Pimentel’s hectare of corn is about 7 million kilocalories. Under primitive conditions, then, 1 hectare of corn would support only 3 or 4 people — or, in other words, 1 square kilometer would support 300 or 400 people.

And all of these are ideal numbers; we are assuming that all resources are distributed rationally and equitably. (We are also assuming no increase in population, but famine and the attendant decrease in fertility will take care of that matter very soon.) Even if every inch of our planet’s “arable portion” were devoted to the raising of corn or other useful crops, we would have trouble squeezing in those 470 people mentioned above.

Given such figures, I have little patience with writers who sprinkle the words “alternative,” “sustainable,” and “transition” over every page. Simple arithmetic is all that is needed to show that such a lexicon is unsuitable.

Nor can I do anything but shake my head when my “organic gardener” friends tell me that they can grow unlimited amounts of food merely by the liberal application of cow manure. Eliot Coleman, Andrew W. Lee, and other recent writers on “low-tech” agriculture (not to mention any farmers of the old school) agree that if cow manure is used on a hectare of farmland, for the first year of crop production at least 100 metric tons are necessary, and after that about 20 tons per year might be adequate. However, cows take up land. Another older but valuable book is Frances Mooore Lappe’s “Diet for a Small Planet,” in which she points out that one cow requires over a hectare in pasturage; that is in addition to the hay, grain, and other foods that the animal is given.

How many cows are needed for all that manure? I neither know nor care. All that is certain is that the use of cows to keep a garden in production would multiply the necessary land area enormously. There would also be no mechanized equipment to deliver the manure. The knowledge of animal husbandry, under primitive conditions, could certainly not be learned overnight. But I can say from experience that reality hits when the sun is going down and the shovel is getting heavy.

Many of the false figures that appear in discussions of the future are the result of armchair gardening of the worst sort. Growing a tiny patch of lettuce and tomatoes is not subsistence gardening. To support human life one must be growing grains and similar crops high in carbohydrates and protein, and these foods must be in quantities large enough to supply three full meals a day, every day, for every person in the household. We must also consider that in apocalyptic times it will certainly not be possible to stroll over to the tap and use a hose to pour unlimited amounts of water over one’s plants; on a large garden, the water is whatever the sky decides to send.

There may be an odd solution or two. There are parts of the Earth where population is actually decreasing in absolute numbers, as people mistakenly come to believe that country living is too hard. Well, yes, being squeezed out by multinationals is definitely too hard, but I’m talking about subsistence agriculture, not trying to survive by picking beans for a dollar an hour. Another partial solution may be a return to foraging, especially for those who choose to live in that non-arable 90 percent. Hunting and fishing have become unfashionable hobbies, but for the physically fit these skills could be a lifesaver; over-harvesting is certainly a concern, but the great majority of westerners are far too weak to spend a day plowing through underbrush.

The seacoast has possibilities that intrigue me. In various coastal areas it is traditional to grow potatoes by placing them on bare rock and covering them with seaweed. Even without a boat it is possible to get a meal by gathering shellfish.

Nor should we totally discount the practicality of animal husbandry. There are many parts of the world that are not suitable for agriculture, but the same land might produce wild grasses or other vegetation that in turn could feed domesticated animals. Under primitive conditions the density of human population in such areas would have to be very low, and the danger of over-grazing would always be there, but the truth is that there are large parts of the world that supported a pastoral life for centuries.

I don’t have much patience with cobbled-together happy endings, but I think there are answers for those who are single-minded enough to go after them. Remember that you can’t save the whole human race, you can only save a few people; learn to use a gun and an ax; head for the country. Oh, yes, and get yourself a reputation as a good neighbor; they may not actually adopt you, but they might help you out when there’s trouble.

Drifting toward "war socialism"

SUBHEAD: A violent scramble for the world's remaining resources.

By Kurt Cobb on 28 June 2009 in Resource Insights
http://resourceinsights.blogspot.com/

Jay Hansen is a well-known voice on issues of peak oil and sustainability. A systems analyst by trade, he established one of the first web sites (dieoff.org) to discuss these issues in depth in the mid-1990s. His latest web venture is a site called War Socialism on which he describes a form of governance which might become the only viable one in the coming age of scarcity unless we can muster unprecedented global cooperation to manage the decline.

By discussing "war socialism" I am not endorsing it. In fact, Hansen proposes an alternative, a global government that severely restricts human use of the global commons, that is, the natural resources upon which all of us depend. But Hansen is no lightweight. He has thought very deeply about our ecological predicament. He has tried to square what he knows about human behavior with what he believes needs to be done in the world we now face. It is clear from the organization and emphasis of his new site that he does not believe it is probable that the kind of global cooperation he would prefer will actually emerge.

image above: Detail of socialist poster against imperialist-capitalism.
From http://socialismtheoryandpractice.blogspot.com/2009/05/may-day-brings-thoughts-of-socialist.html

To understand "war socialism" one needs first to understand that Hansen believes that the most likely (though certainly not preferable) trajectory for humanity is a massive dieoff that will claim the lives of 90 percent of the human inhabitants of the Earth. Absent the kind of cooperation Hansen would like to see in managing the coming decline, the only rational strategy may be for one's own country to work to outcompete other countries. The picture he paints is not an appealing one. But when you are trying to be one of the 10 percent who will survive the coming collapse, there is little room for sentimentality.

So, let's look at the war socialism society Hansen describes, and let's see if some of its building blocks are already in place in the United States. Here are the basic principles:

1. Increase our fraction of global net energy (divert energy from competitors) directly by military action.

Comment: There is little room to deny that the United States has long engaged in military action to increase and secure its access to resources, especially energy. With U. S. troops all over the Middle East that pattern continues.

2. Increase our fraction of global net energy economically by increasing asset values (e.g., pumping up the stock market and real estate prices).

Comment: This has rather successfully been done during the last 25 years though clearly it was not sustainable. We are trying to do it all over again.

3. Reduce energy demand by eliminating unnecessary economic activity.

Comment: Nothing has been done in this regard unless you count the shipping of jobs overseas.

4. Reduce energy demand by reducing human population levels (e.g., closing our borders, deporting as many as possible and discouraging births).

Comment: There are periodic calls for immigration restrictions but little has been done. Deportations are currently focused on people thought to be likely threats to the country and as such are part of the so-called "War on Terror." While birthrates had been declining for a long time, they have now resumed an upward trend due in part to the influx of immigrants who tend to have larger families.

5. Plant “Victory Gardens” throughout the country.

Comment: The local food movement has become surprisingly vibrant in the United States. While home and community gardens still make up only a small fraction of the food supply, their popularity is expanding rapidly.

6. Heavy funding for basic energy research.

Comment: While funding is large for basic energy research, much of it is directed at fossil fuels instead of renewable energy sources.

7. Pollution control rollback, streamline permitting (no Environmental Impact Statements, etc.) for alternate energy. No more permits for fossil fuel power plants. No more funding for roads. No more building permits except in special cases.

Comment: While President George W. Bush did his level best to roll back environmental rules for power plants and industry and to streamline permitting, he did it primarily on behalf of fossil fuel installations instead of alternative energy projects. Road building continues apace; but the recession (depression?) has slowed new building permits to a crawl.

8. Full-on conservation, local energy production to minimize grid vulnerabilities, and a crash alternate energy production program. (Conservation will help under a government that limits economic activity).

Comment: Marginal efforts have been made here and there (e.g. weatherization programs, renewable energy portfolio standards), but nothing that could be characterized as "full-on."

9. Free mass transit.

Comment: While mass transit ridership has been rising as the fuel costs of owning an automobile have increased, only marginal efforts have been made to expand the availability of mass transit. In addition, fares for mass transit users have actually been rising.

The report card for the United States as a war socialist society is decidedly mixed. We seem to have the war part down. But the socialist part is lacking. The current administration wants to redistribute benefits in American society, most notably through new health care spending meant to bring all people under some kind of coverage. It has enacted funding for a plethora of public works projects, but many of them are simply more road building. The administration seeks to expand renewable energy, but has a keen interest in the coal industry through such doubtful technologies as carbon sequestration.

But one might ask why the socialism part of Hansen's war socialism society is so important? The answer is social cohesion. In the coming crisis if people don't feel they have a stake in the system, then they will be much less likely to work or fight or submit to the rules for the common good. Hansen believes that without substantial internal cooperation, no society will weather the coming storm. Instead, we may simply devolve into a lawless anarchy.

War socialist ideas are also in the news in Great Britain where the British National Party won seats in the European Parliament. This case is interesting because the BNP is explicit about the danger of peak oil and the world of shrinking resources we can expect. Some of its prescriptions sound harsh, and others seem enlightened. The party has been trying to repackage itself with difficulty because of its racist, right-wing heritage. 

The basic BNP response is increased self-sufficiency and isolation: 1) a military which defends Great Britain and doesn't seek foreign adventures, 2) a halt to immigration, 3) deportation of illegals and noncitizen criminals, 4) a devolution of power to local governments, 5) a reversal of the privatization of British rails and new investment to expand public transportation, 6) a selective withdrawal from the global economy and increased local manufacturing, 7) food self-sufficiency based on organic methods, and 8) cooperative ownership of power production (with wind given as a primary example).

The BNP website no longer makes it sound like a party that fits neatly within the reactionary right (though in practice its emphasis on a "white" Britain remains central). Still, some of its ideas are actually quite close to those described by Hansen as war socialism. What's not in view is an aggressive foreign and military policy designed to extract resources from competing nations, something that Britain's major parties clearly embrace. The BNP, which is a minor party, is relevant to British politics because major parties often neutralize minor ones by co-opting their ideas. And, Britain is actually further along the war socialism path than the United States.

We and Hansen can still hope for unprecedented cooperation to manage the coming decline. But he may be right that if that cooperation doesn't emerge, we may be faced with a decision about making preparations for an all-out and probably violent scramble for the world's remaining resources--a contest in which a disciplined, cohesive and militarized society has the best chance of survival. Is he missing a viable third or fourth way? Even more important, is there time to implement a different path as nations successively awaken to the realities of peak oil and resource stringency and increasingly focus on self-preservation rather than cooperation?

The Slope of Dysfunction

SUBHEAD: One must assume that Earthling oil production will be be saved by aliens from outer space. 

By Dmitry Orlov on 25 June 2009 in ClubOrlov
http://cluborlov.blogspot.com/2009/06/slope-of-dysfunction.html

Perhaps you have heard of the Peak Oil theory? Most people have by now, even the people whose job used to involve denying the possibility that global crude oil production would peak any time soon. Now that everybody seems a bit more comfortable with the idea, perhaps it is time to reexamine it. Is the scenario Peak Oil theoreticians paint indeed realistic, or is it firmly grounded in wishful thinking?


image above: Detail of chart in original article.

Here is a typical, slightly outdated Peak Oil chart. I chose it because it looks pretty and conveys the typical Peak Oil message, which is that global crude oil (and natural gas condensate) production will rise to a lofty peak sometime soon, and then drift down gently, over several decades, until, by the year 2050 or some other distant date, less than half as much oil will be produced globally. 

Since this would still be a very impressive number, and since we have decades to adjust to living with half as much oil, this would not necessarily pose a major problem. Some combination of new energy from wind, solar, biomass and nuclear sources, coupled with efficiency improvements such as light rail and electric cars, better-insulated buildings and so on, would allow us to plug up the gap.

Peak Oil theorists base their calculations on data from the many oil-producing provinces that have already peaked, such as the United States, which peaked in 1970. The majority of oil-producing provinces and countries are past peak now, providing the theorists with a wealth of precise data. But they seem to have overlooked one little detail, which, I believe, is rather important. 

What do countries do when they reach their peak and can no longer supply themselves with sufficient quantities of oil from their depleting domestic sources? They turn to imports, of course. They can do so if their local peak comes before the global peak; they cannot do so if it comes after. This makes local peaks poor analogies for the global peak.

And what happens if a country cannot import oil to make up for the production deficit? It just so happens that we have a convenient example of just such a scenario unfolding: post-Soviet oil production after the collapse of the USSR. There, production declined 43% between 1987 and 1996. The decline was arrested and reversed by the introduction of foreign investment and technology (Source: Marek Kolodziej and Doug Reynolds, ASPO Workshop, Lisbon, Portugal, May 19. 2005).

Note how just around the time of the collapse oil production goes into free-fall, which is only arrested in mid-1990s. Had the Former Soviet Union remained economically isolated, the free-fall would have continued. Kolodziej and Reynolds drew some interesting conclusions based on these data. Firstly, the crash in oil production preceded collapse in USSR's Gross Domestic Product. The lag time between the two, and the severity of the collapse are clear enough to ascribe causality: to say that the oil crash caused the economic collapse. On the other hand, coal and natural gas production, which also crashed, did so after the GDP collapsed, again, with a significant enough lag time to say with confidence that it was economic collapse that caused coal and gas production to crash.

What actually happens to an economy and a society under such circumstances? With oil in short supply, industrial production plummets, the economy stalls, there is a financial crisis because of debts going bad, followed by a commercial crisis because of falling demand and lack of credit, followed by political collapse caused by dwindling government revenues, followed by social collapse as unemployment rises and crime becomes rampant. After a while of this, the idea of you and your friends going out to the oil field and pumping some more oil starts to seem rather odd, and so oil production heads to zero.

The global oil peak is different from all the little localized peaks in that the planet as a whole cannot import its way out of an oil shortage, resulting in a global economic collapse. The economic collapse will, in turn, cause global oil production to crash even faster, extinguishing the industrial economy.

It seems possible that certain countries which are currently oil exporters might be able to keep the oil flowing, provided they have nationalized their oil production and are sufficiently authoritarian and militarized to quell any unrest. But modern oil production is a technically complicated business (the easy-to-get-at oil is all gone) while the field service equipment and parts delivery system is fully globalized and exceedingly complex. Shocks to any part of the global economy are very likely to disrupt the whole before too long. Nevertheless, it seems likely that some countries will be able to keep their military supplied with fuel, until enough of their equipment wears out.

What, then, of our canonical Peak Oil scenario, which is that global crude oil (and natural gas condensate) production will rise to a lofty peak sometime soon, and then gently waft down, over several decades, until, by the year 2050 or some other distant date, less than half as much oil will be produced globally? 

Ever eager to present a hopeful vision, I will say here and now that I believe this scenario to be entirely plausible... but it requires alien intervention. As Russian oil production was saved by foreigners, so Earthling oil production must be be saved by aliens from outer space. Here's an updated Peak Oil slide:

Although we have absolutely zero data on which to base this assumption, we must assume that oil production throughout the rest of the universe has not peaked yet. Further, we must assume that interstellar vessels will deliver this oil to Earth in a timely manner, making up for any planetary production shortfall before Earth's economy collapses. 

Further, since Earth has few resources to trade for this oil, let us assume that the aliens will be happy to give us their oil in exchange for a truly excellent recipe for brioche à tête which (for reasons we should find intuitively obvious) no-one in the rest of the universe has been able to perfect.

The Information Age is over...

SUBHEAD: The Climate Age will define the next age of humanity.

By Ashaman on 27 June 2009 in the Daily Kos
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/6/27/747440/-The-Information-Age-is-over...

Human history is best thought of in Ages. An Age is somewhat tied to the prevailing technology of the day, but also defined by how that technology is used, where our attention is focused.

We started with the Stone Age, where our first pieces of technology were stone blades. We then followed with a series of ages named after the best metal we could produce, Copper, Bronze, Iron, Steel. The early part of the 20th century is often considered the Industrial Age, and the late 20th century marked the beginning of the Information Age, based on computer technology.


image above: Detail of sign for Space Station Gas & Liquor.
From http://www.flickr.com/photos/23019891@N00/865748675

But I can see the future, and the Information Age just ended. When historians look back at the beginning of the 21st century, they'll draw a line and say: "Here lies the beginning of the Climate Age."

But 'climate' isn't a technology, you can't name an age after it!

Ok, fine, give me a better name then. I'm serious.

But what else are we going to call it? For the next century or so, mankind is going to be increasingly focused on two simple tasks: preventing additional climate change, and dealing with the damage to our society caused by climate change. Those tasks will dominate our lives, and the lives of our children.

We are going to essentially rebuild everything, and it's not going to be just shinier and more expensive.

Our entire energy infrastructure is going to be replaced. By the end of the century, the very idea of burning coal or oil for power will seem absurd, given the dozens of clean alternatives. Solar and wind farms will pop up everywhere, geothermal wells will get dug, and the movements of rivers and oceans will all be tapped for their energy. Not a single power line standing today will exist by mid-century, they'll be replaced with a high-efficiency smart grid. But we won't stop there, we can't.

Our homes will also get rebuilt, refurbished, or replaced. Building codes will demand much higher levels of insulation. We'll all have inert-gas filled, reflective-film covered, triple-pane windows. Building designs will all contain passive solar heating and cooling, and our roof lines will host a variety of active solar and wind driven generators. Our plumbing will be re-worked, you won't have just 'clean' water and 'sewage', but there will also be pipes for greywater and captured rainwater, and cisterns for both. Water drained from your shower will flush your toilet, and nobody will waste purified drinkable water on something as mundane as watering flowers.


Industry will rework itself as well. Heavy industry will capture not only polluting gasses, but waste heat from their processes. The materials we use today, concrete and steel, will either be reformed to take less energy to create, or replaced with new materials entirely.

Agriculture will completely change, and this is where it starts to get ugly. There will be stronger movements for organic processes and local food, so the nature of the crops planted, and the methods for tending those crops, will adjust. But more importantly will be dealing with the constantly changing climate. Higher temperatures will cause drier soils, requiring more hardy plants or irrigation. But frequent droughts will make irrigation increasingly expensive, and total regional crop failures will become far more common. Heavy rainfalls will interrupt those droughts, causing erosion of increasingly scarce topsoil. 

It will become too hot to grow wheat or corn anywhere in the United States, so the breadbasket of North America will move into Canada, where the glaciers left all those big rocks behind. Invasive species of plant and insect will migrate to brand new regions, and farmers will constantly be worried about the newest unexpected threat. Low lying regions that are used for rice crops will begin to see rising oceans invade their fields, making them useless for anything but salt-tolerant species. Overall, agriculture will be hit with so many different problems that it can't keep up, and total food production will probably have peaked just after peak oil.

In the wake of decreasing agriculture, people will turn to the seas. Already over-fished regions will be decimated, and entire populations of fish will disappear. But basic chemistry will also be working in the oceans: increased CO2 levels in the air will translate into more absorption by the oceans, and carbonic acid will form. This is probably as big a threat to the biosphere as simple warming, and it's called ocean acidification. The direct consequence is that many ocean creatures won't be able to fix the calcium they need to create their shells. Fundamental pieces of the food chain will collapse, further reducing the availability of fish for human consumption.

Rising oceans and storms will begin destroying coastal real-estate. We'll start by trying to protect big cities, like New Orleans and New York, with increasingly larger walls and dams. By the end of the century, every large city on the coastline will have a massive engineering effort to defend the expensive areas, while smaller cities or suburban zones will simply be moved or abandoned. Once a decade, a major engineering effort will fail, flooding a city and causing great loss of life and property. Insurance rates will climb everywhere, and there will be multiple trillion-dollar bailouts of the entire insurance industry.

Populations will begin to move. The areas we once considered to be hospitable to our civilization will have changed. People will have to move away from the coastlines, but they'll also have to go to places where agriculture is still functioning. Immigration battles will become a nightmare as hundreds of millions of people try to relocate across the globe, and local populations will resist the arrival of outsiders, especially as resources get scarce. Both sides will have guns.

By the end of the century, I don't think overpopulation will be an issue anymore. There will be starvation, there will be wars, there will be pandemics, there will be genocides, there will be yet more wars, and there will be fewer people wanting children in an increasingly harsh world. The human population on this planet will have decreased by the end of the century. While I can see the future dimly, I can't quite tell how painful this population decrease will be, how fast or how violent.

This transition is inevitable, it can't be stopped. Planetary climates have massive inertia, and we've gotten ours moving. It'll take multiple centuries of hard work to bring it back to the comfortable levels that we experienced in the 20th century. But we still have some control over how bad it'll get, and how fast it'll get there, and how long it takes to fix the damage. We can act sooner and it'll be easier, or we can act later and the cost will be a hundred times higher.

But we have no choice, we have to deal with both prevention and damage for the next century or so, to one degree or another, and this will essentially define the next Age of Humanity.

The Climate Age has arrived. Are you ready?

Save Kokee Meeting

SUBHEAD: Kokee Advisory Council meeting on Thursday, July 2, 2009 at County Council Chambers at 5:30 pm.
SOURCE: Ken Taylor (taylork021@Hawaii.rr.com)

By Pumehana on June 26 2009 for Save Kokee -

If you can't attend a meeting, please send in a testimony to www.kokeeadvisory.org. Even if it is only one line that states your feelings. mahalo.

E`O People of Kaua`i! Koke`e and Waimea Canyon State Parks needs you to listen to your hearts and speak your mind! The next Koke`e Advisory Council meeting will be held on Thursday, July 2, 2009 at the Kaua`i County Council Chambers at 5:30 pm. It is time to give public testimony AGAIN because the DLNR’s final version of the Master Plan does not reflect the majority consensus of the people (see below). This meeting is very important-- the Koke`e Advisory Council needs to hear from the community as the Council is our voice. If you are unable to attend, please let the Koke`e Advisory Council members know your thoughts at kokeeadvisory@gmail.com. More information is at their website at www.KokeeAdvisory.org.


image above: Sign at entrance to Kanaloahuluhulu Meadow in Kokee.
From http://www.hawaiiweb.com/kauai/html/sites/kokee_lodge.html

When the DLNR starts paving and infringing on the natural landscape, we can never go back to the simple beauty of these beloved places.

The Final Master Plan for Koke`e and Waimea Canyon State Parks, entitled the Enhanced Park Facilities Development Plan,” as proposed by DLNR and its consultant, R. M. Towill, includes in its vision and stated objectives:

Objectives:
 “Creating a destination” that “enhances the wildland experience”;
 “Enhancing park identity” through signage;
 “Optimizing” recreational opportunities;
 “Focusing development at lookouts and along the roadway corridor between Pu`u ka Pele and Kanaloahuluhulu Meadow”;
 “Constructing a visitors center”;
 “Developing ‘satellite’ interpretive facilities at lookouts and trail hubs”;
 “Developing tours around themes”;
 “Expanding concession and management leases”;
 “Developing the lodge area as a ‘main street’.. with new [and separate] Park HQ, Lodge and Education Center buildings... served by storefront parking”;
 “Establishing a revenue enhancement program including entry fee and improved concession facilities at lookouts and [at] Kanaloahuluhulu [meadow];”
 Achieving “sustainable operations with 35% of park revenues.”

Some of the specific plans include:

Kanaloahuluhulu Meadow:
(Referred to in plan as “Revenue Generation Center”)
 Overall, probable demolition of all existing buildings at the meadow and replacement;
 Development of a “lodge complex” with additional short-term rentals “to meet existing demand” (-- also suggests new short-term rental rooms may be incorporated into existing park buildings at the meadow);
 Development of the lodge area as a “main street” layout
 Removal of the historic park headquarters building at the entrance to the meadow and development of new park headquarters located closer to the lodge;
 Development of a new “Park Visitor Service Center” at the meadow area, along with a new or renovated lodge and museum (part of the main street complex), and “improved” parking;
 Development of interpretive program for new Visitor Service Center;
 Realignment of road entrance to direct cars to the commercial area, lodge and museum;
 The current lodge manager’s house (“Ranger Station”) to be used by Division of State Parks staff.

Waimea Canyon:
 Lookout “provides the setting for visitor amenities”;
 Development of new, permanent Visitor Information and Concession building at the lookout viewpoint, to include:
o Souvenir and snack concession
o interpretive displays
o information center
o restrooms
 Development of new, “highly developed” parking lot and bus staging area below existing parking lot using “robust” materials to “signal to the visitor the character of the experience they are entering.”

Kalalau Lookout:
 Redesign lookout (to take “full advantage of the sweeping views along the cliff face”) and lookout guardrails (currently underway);
 Develop gateway feature with signage;
 Expand parking lot (currently underway)
 Interpretive program
 Note that in the 2004 master plan, the road from the meadow to Kalalau lookout was to be widened to accommodate full-size tour buses. This language has been removed from the 2009 version of the master plan, but the widening of the road to 20’ is currently underway.

Lower Elevation Lookouts:
The plan provides for transfer of Waimea Canyon Road (and portions of Koke`e Road) from Department of Transportation to Division of State Parks from Koke`e down to Waimea town, to permit collection of a fee as well as development of lookouts. Division of State Parks will assume responsibility for maintaining the entire length of the roadway.

 Nine (9) sites are identified between mile marker 1.1 and 6.4 along Waimea Canyon Road as “promising” for development.

 Development of these new lower elevation lookouts (from Waimea town up to mile 6.4) are to feature “typical” amenities such as restrooms, ADA accessible pathways, turnout, interpretive signage, etc.

Trails:
 Informational and interpretive signage throughout the trail system to orient and educate hikers, including ‘satellite’ interpretive facilities at trail hubs;
 New facilities at Water Tank and Kaluapuhi trailheads with parking lots with capacity for 45 and 50 cars, respectively, directional signage and toilets.
 Suggests that “elevated canopy trails in the forest” be considered.

Entry Fee Station:
 Considered “essential component” of master plan;
 Additional stated purpose (added in 2009 master plan): the fee station will “remind visitors they are entering sacred ground”;
 Located at the 6.9 mile mark at the junction of Koke`e Road (from Kekaha) and Waimea Canyon Road (from Waimea);
 Fee station is positioned between one incoming and two exiting travel lanes;
 Additional development on and within the roadway to accommodate the fee station:
o One lane exiting downhill;
o A raised median with crash barriers to accommodate station;
o Entry Fee Station of a minimum of 100 sf (10’ x 10’);
o Two incoming lanes heading uphill, one with card-activated gate for residents and park staff;
o Development of an additional 550 sf building at roadside;
o Parking lot with a minimum of 4 parking spaces at roadside, including ADA van-accessible space and adequate distance for vehicles backing out;
o Staffed by one uniformed DSP staff;
o Hours TBD, daylight hours
 Master Plan executive summary shows that the revenue generated by Koke`e currently exceeds its operating expenses without additional fees;
 Fee collected at Koke`e entry fee station will go to DLNR for statewide purposes;
 For State Parks to collect a fee, the Department of Transportation (currently maintaining the road) must transfer Waimea Canyon Road to the Division of State Parks.
o Transfer of the road is a prerequisite to park entry fee station and entry fee program as DOT does not permit DSP to collect a fee on a state road.
o Division of State Parks must then take over maintenance and control of the road from Waimea town all the way up the mountain.

see also:

The Transition Initiative

SUBHEAD: We’re facing a historical moment of choice—our actions now are affecting the future.

By Jay Griffiths on 24 June 2009 in Orion Magazine
http://www.orionmagazine.org/index.php/articles/article/4792

A while ago, I heard an American scientist address an audience in Oxford, England, about his work on the climate crisis. He was precise, unemotional, rigorous, and impersonal: all strengths of a scientist.

The next day, talking informally to a small group, he pulled out of his wallet a much-loved photo of his thirteen-year-old son. He spoke as carefully as he had before, but this time his voice was sad, worried, and fatherly. His son, he said, had become so frightened about climate change that he was debilitated, depressed, and disturbed. Some might have suggested therapy, Prozac, or baseball for the child. But in this group one voice said gently, “What about the Transition Initiative?”



image above: Totnes, the first Transition Town in Devon, England.

From http://www.devonbuildingcontrol.gov.uk/html/totnes.html


If the Transition Initiative were a person, you’d say he or she was charismatic, wise, practical, positive, resourceful, and very, very popular. Starting with the town of Totnes in Devon, England, in September 2006, the movement has spread like wildfire across the U.K. (delightfully wriggling its way into The Archers, Britain’s longest-running and most popular radio soap opera), and on to the U.S., Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and Japan. The core purpose of the Transition Initiative is to address, at the community level, the twin issues of climate change and peak oil—the declining availability of “ancient sunlight,” as fossil fuels have been called. The initiative is set up to enable towns or neighborhoods to plan for, and move toward, a post-oil and low-carbon future: what Rob Hopkins, founder of the Transition Initiative, has termed “the great transition of our time, away from fossil fuels.”

Part of the genius of the movement rests in its acute and kind psychology. It acknowledges the emotional effect of these issues, from that thirteen-year-old’s sense of fear and despair, to common feelings of anger, impotence, and denial, and it uses insights from the psychology of addiction to address some reasons why it is hard for people to detoxify themselves from an addiction to (or dependence on) oil. It acknowledges that healthy psychological functioning depends on a belief that one’s needs will be met in the future; for an entire generation, that belief is now corroded by anxiety over climate change.

Many people feel that individual action on climate change is too trivial to be effective but that they are unable to influence anything at a national, governmental level. They find themselves paralyzed between the apparent futility of the small-scale and impotence in the large-scale. The Transition Initiative works right in the middle, at the scale of the community, where actions are significant, visible, and effective. “What it takes is a scale at which one can feel a degree of control over the processes of life, at which individuals become neighbors and lovers instead of just acquaintances and ciphers. . . participants and protagonists instead of just voters and taxpayers. That scale is the human scale,” wrote author and secessionist Kirkpatrick Sale in his 1980 book, Human Scale.

How big am I? As an individual, five foot two and whistling. At a government level, I find I’ve shrunk, smaller than the X on my ballot paper. But at a community level, I can breathe in five river-sources and breathe out three miles of green valleys.

Scale matters.
We speak of economies of scale, and I would suggest that there are also moralities of scale. At the individual scale, morality is capricious: people can be heroes or mass murderers, but the individual is usually constrained by inner conscience and always constrained by size. While a nation-state can at best offer a meager welfare system, at worst—as the history of nations in the twentieth century showed so brutally—morality need not be constrained by any conscience, and through its enormity a state can engineer a genocide. At the community level, though, morality is complex: certainly communities can be jealous and spiteful and less given to heroism than an individual, yet a community’s power to harm is far less than that of a state, simply because of its size. Further, because there are more niche reasons for people to identify with their community, and simply because there is a greater per-capita responsibility, a community is more susceptible to a sense of shame. Community morality involves a sense of fellow-feeling, is attuned to the common good, far steadier than individual morality, far kinder than the State: its moral range reaches neither heaven nor hell but is grounded, well-rooted in the level of Earth.

STARTING WITH a steering group of just a handful of people in one locality, the motivation to become a Transition community spreads, often through many months of preparation, information-giving, and awareness-raising of the issues of climate change and peak oil. In those months, there are talks and film screenings, and a deliberate attempt to encourage a sense of a community’s resilience in the face of stresses. When members of the steering group judge that there is enough support and momentum for the project, it is launched, or “unleashed.”

Keeping an eye on the prize (reducing carbon emissions and oil dependence), Transition communities have then looked at their own situation in various practical frames—for example, food production, energy use, building, waste, and transport—seeking to move toward a situation where a community could be self-reliant. At this stage, the steering group steps back, and various subgroups can form around specific aspects of transitioning. Strategies have included the promotion of local food production, planting fruit trees in public spaces, community gardening, and community composting. In terms of energy use, some communities have begun “oil vulnerability auditing” for local businesses, and some have sought to re-plan local transport for “life beyond the car.” In one Transition Town there are plans to make local, renewable energy a resource owned by the community, in another there are plans to bulk-buy solar panels as a cooperative and sell them locally without profit. There are projects of seed saving, seed swapping, and creating allotments—small parcels of land on which individuals can grow fruit and vegetables.

“The people who see the value of changing the system are ordinary people, doing it for their children,” says Naresh Giangrande, who was involved in setting up the first Transition Town. “The political process is corrupted by money, power, and vested interests. I’m not writing off large corporations and government, but because they have such an investment in this system, they haven’t got an incentive to change. I can only see us getting sustainable societies from the grassroots, bottom-up, and only that way can we get governments to change.” In the States, the “350” project (the international effort to underscore the need to decrease atmospheric carbon dioxide to 350 parts per million) is similarly asking ordinary people to signal to those in power. If change doesn’t come from above, it must come from below, and politicians would be unwise to ignore the concern about peak oil and climate change coming from the grassroots.

The grassroots. Both metaphorically and literally. Transition Initiative founder Rob Hopkins used to be a permaculture teacher, and permaculture’s influence is wide and deep. As permaculture works with, rather than against, nature, so the Transition Initiative works with, rather than against, human nature; it is as collaborative and cooperative in social tone as permaculture is in its attitude toward plants and, like permaculture, is prepared to observe and think, slowly.

One of the subgroups that Transition communities typically use is called “Heart and Soul,” which focuses on the psychological and emotional aspects of climate crisis, of change, of community. Importantly, people are encouraged to be participants in the conversation, not just passive spectators: it is a nurturant process, involving anyone who wants to be a part. Good conversation involves quality listening, for an open-minded, attentive listener can elicit the best thoughts of a speaker. Giangrande says that the Transition Initiative—which has used keynote speakers—is also exploring the idea of keynote listeners as “a collaborative way of learning how to use knowledge.” When I asked exactly what that would involve, he couldn’t be specific, because it was still only an idea, which is revealing of the Transition process, very much a work-in-progress. The fact that they were trying out an idea without being able to predict the results has a vitality to it, an intellectually energetic quality, a profound liveliness.

The Transition Initiative describes itself as a catalyst, with no fixed answers, unlike traditional environmentalism, which is more prescriptive, advocating certain responses. Again unlike conventional environmentalism, it emphasizes the role of hope and proactiveness, rather than guilt and fear as motivators. Whether intentionally or not, environmentalism can seem exclusive, and the Transition Initiative is whole-heartedly inclusive.


While in many ways the Transition Initiative is new, it often finds its roots in the past, in a practical make-do-and-mend attitude. There is an interesting emphasis on “re-skilling” communities in traditional building and organic gardening, for example: crafts that were taken for granted two generations ago but are now often forgotten. Mandy Dean, who helped set up a Transition Initiative in her community in Wales, describes how her group bought root stocks of fruit trees and then organized grafting workshops; it was practical, but also “it was about weaving some ideas back into culture.”

In the British context, the memory of World War II is crucial, for during the war people experienced long fuel shortages and needed to increase local food production—digging for victory. In both the U.K. and the U.S., the shadow of the Depression years now looms uncomfortably close, encouraging an attitude of mending rather than buying new; tending one’s own garden; restoring the old.

To mend, to tend, and to restore all expand beautifully from textiles, vegetables, and furniture into those most quiet of qualities; to restore is restorative, to tend involves tenderness, to mend hints at amends. There is restitution here of community itself.

FOR ALL OF HUMAN HISTORY, people have engaged with the world through some form of community, and this is part of our social evolution. Somewhere deep inside us all is an archived treasure, the knowledge of what it is to be part of a community via extended families, locality, village, a shared fidelity to common land, unions, faith communities, language communities, co-operatives, gay communities, even virtual communities, which, for all their unreality, still reflect a yearning for a wider home for the collective soul. The nineteenth-century artist William Morris spoke of the gentle social-ism that he called fellowship: “Fellowship is life, and lack of fellowship is death.”

People never need communities more than when there are threats to security, food, and lives. The Transition Initiative recognizes how much we need this scale now, because of peak oil and climate change. But beyond this concrete need, the lack of a sense of community has negative psychological impacts on individuals across the “developed” world, as people report persistent and widespread feelings of loneliness, isolation, dispossession, alienation, and depression. Beyond a certain threshold, increased income does not create increased happiness, and the false promise of consumerism (buy this: be happy) sets the individual on a quest for a constantly receding goal of their own private fulfillment, while sober evidence repeatedly suggests that happiness is more surely found in contributing toward a community endeavor. (The Buddha smiles a tired, patient smile: “I’ve been telling you that for years.”) Community endeavor increases “social capital,” that captivating idea expressing the value of local relationships, networks, help, and friendships. A rise in social capital could be the positive concomitant of a fall in financial capital that a low-carbon future may entail.

Many people today experience a strange hollow in the psyche, a hole the size of a village. Mandy Dean alludes to this when she explains why she was drawn to the Transition Initiative: “One of the awful things about modern culture is separation and isolation; we’ve broken down almost every social bond, so the one bond left is between parent and child. In this extreme isolation, we don’t interact except with the television and the computer. We’ve lost something, and we don’t know what it is, and we try to fill it with food and alcohol and shopping but it’s never filled—what we’ve lost is our connection to our community, our place, and nature. Stepping back away from that isolation is very healing for people; getting people into groups where they can do things together starts to reverse that isolation.”

FOR HUNDREDS OF YEARS, nation-states have attacked communities. Earliest and most emblematic were the enclosures: when governments passed laws to privatize common land, the spirit of collectivity was undermined as surely as the site of it. The vicious system of reservations for Native Americans robbed people of communities of land and stole from them the communal autonomy central to their cultural survival. Indigenous people all over the world have found their language communities assaulted, fracturing even their ability to speak.

From the monster-enclosures of colonialism to the subtle but strangulating enclosures of Time, through which people ceased to “own” their own time, instead being corralled into the factory-time of industrial capitalism, the idea and the actuality of community has been eroded in countless ways. “There is no such thing as society”—the most sociopathic lie ever uttered by a British prime minister—was Thatcher’s summing up as she and Reagan broke the unions, and for decades agribusiness has destroyed the lives and dignity of campesinos in South America, while neo-liberalism has wreaked havoc on communities across the world. And there are seemingly trivial examples that nonetheless are cumulatively important; in contemporary Britain the mass closures of pubs tear the fabric that knits communities together.

The colonial powers practiced the policy of “divide and rule,” usually dividing one community from another, but in contemporary society there is a more insidious policy of “atomize and rule.” The world of mass media fragments real societies into solitary individuals, passive recipients of information, consuming the faked-up society that television, in particular, provides, and one result of this is that the public, political injustices that communities have habitually analyzed and acted upon (food-poverty, housing-poverty, fuel-poverty, or time-poverty) have been rendered as merely an individual’s private problems.

It’s interesting (and not a little sad) that although the French Revolution announced that it stood for three things, only two of these (Liberty and Equality) have survived in political parlance while the third, Fraternity, has been made to sound both quaint and unnecessary. For decades, the voice of the State has declared that community solidarity is occasionally dangerous (unions are “too powerful and need to be destroyed”) or, like fraternity, rather parochial. What, though, could be more parochial than the voice of the mass media? Rejecting the rainbow of pluralism (the magnificent myriad Other upon Other upon Other, the Pan-Otherness by which all communities are Other to someone), the mass media broadcasts itself in mono. Narrow. Singular. Very, very parochial in its tight and exclusive remit.

In the long fetch of the wave, the Transition Initiative should be seen as a new formulation of a very old idea. We are ineluctably and gloriously social animals. We want fellowship. We flock, we gather, we chirp, we howl, we sing, we call, and we listen. If the Transition Initiative is empowering for communities, that is because there is an enormous latent energy there to be tapped, so that communities may be authors of their own story, hopeful, active, and belonging, rather than despairing, passive, and cynical.

Naresh Giangrande, in Totnes, tells me about a session they are designing on the theme of Belonging. Belonging, of course, is a lovely boomerang of an idea—where do you belong? Can that place belong to you? “Through the Transition Initiative,” says Giangrande, “we can talk about things in public which are normally only talked about privately. We all have a deep wound about belonging to the Earth.”

The Transition Initiative, says Giangrande, is “a movement that could be world-changing. And it is heartwarming to see how good-natured and good most people are—it revives my sense of community. It completely contradicts the image of human nature in the media, portraying it as greedy and selfish, competitive, nasty, and unsocial. That’s a self-reinforcing prophecy. We’re setting up the reverse. And we’re asking: will you join us?” People have flocked to do so. At the time of this writing, there are 146 Transition Initiatives, and by the time you read this there will be far more.

One of its techniques is in strengthening all that is associative, and attempting to democratize power, with a fine understanding of that particular social grace which seeks to create what Martin Buber called The Between.

What is it, The Between? Fertile, delicious, and powerful, it is the edge of meeting. The cocreated place of pure potential, a coevocation of possibility. The delicate point of meeting between you and him. Between them. Between us. What is the geometry of The Between? I could explain best if we went down to the pub, you and I (mine’s a glass of red wine, anything as long as it’s not Merlot, yeuch, that’s like drinking cold steel), and the geometry of The Between is as simple and direct as the line of our eyes across the table. It’s horizontal, equal, fraternal. We might have a chat with a couple of the old farmers, and my pal the vicar might be there with his guitar and best of all is when the harpist plays, which he does, very occasionally.

Warm with conviviality and wine, I might wander home and switch on the television (except for the fact that I gave it away some years ago), and Sky News would be showing me a parade of celebrities, each making me feel that little bit more insignificant. Celebrity culture is an opposite of community, informing us that these few nonsense-heads matter but that the rest of us do not. Insidiously, the television tells me I am no one.

If I was Someone, I’d be on telly. In this way, television dis-esteems its viewers, and celebrity culture is both a cause and a consequence of the low self-esteem that mars so many people’s lives. So, the unacknowledged individual is manipulated into a jealousy of acknowledgment, which is why it is so telling that huge numbers of young people insist that when they grow up they want to be a celebrity. They are quite right. (Almost.)

That is nothing less than they deserve, for we all need acknowledgment (but not fame). We all need recognition (but not to be “spotted” out shopping). We all need to be known, we need our selves confirmed by others, fluidly, naturally. A sense of community has always provided these familiar, unshowy acts of ordinary recognition, and the Transition Initiative, like any wise community, offers simple acknowledgment, telling us we are all players.

“Mistaken, appalling and dangerous” is how the Transition Initiative has been described, which is the kind of criticism you covet, knowing that the speaker is an oil industry professional and author of The Myth of the Oil Crisis. Others have criticized it for being insufficiently confrontational. There are also criticisms from within: a tension between those who prefer fast action and those who prefer slow consideration, for the movement is both urgent and slow. It is transformatively sudden, and yet uses the subtle, tentative questioning of long dialogues within communities, a very slow process of building a network of relationships within the whole community.

In the language of climate change science, there are many tipping points, where slow causations are suddenly expressed in dramatic, negative consequences. The conference I attended when I met the scientist speaking of his unhappy son was called Tipping Point, and in a sense the Transition Initiative places itself as a social tipping point, with dramatic and positive consequences where the sudden wisdom of communities breaks through the stolid unwisdom of national government.

“We’re doing work for generations to come,” says Giangrande. You can’t change a place overnight, he says, but you have to begin now in the necessary urgency of our time. “We’re facing a historical moment of choice—our actions now [are] affecting the future. Now’s the time. The system we know is breaking down. Yet out of this breakdown, there are always new possibilities.” It’s catagenesis, the birth of the new from the death of the old. The process is “so creative and so chaotic,” says Giangrande. “Let it unfold—allow it—the key is not to direct it but to encourage it. We’ve developed the A to C of transition. The D to Z is still to come.” Brave, this, and very attractive. It is catalytic, emergent, and dynamic, facing forward with a vivid vitality but backlit with another kind of ancient sunlight: human, social energy.

Saving Ourselves

SUBHEAD: Consuming within recharge rates to ensure our long-range existence on this world.

By Randall Amster on26 June 2009 in Common Dreams
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2009/06/26-5

In bygone days, the environmental movement would often cast its lot with a "Save the [blank]" ideology that generally included non-human components such as "world" or "whales" or "spotted owls" in its formulation. Unsurprisingly, many people scoffed at the suggestion that human opportunities and progress should be foregone in the name of saving other entities. In the end, the notion that our existence might somehow be dependent upon the existence of those "other" things -- or that we ought to learn to get by with less of the stuff we wanted -- was a hard sell to a public used to thinking in Cartesian terms of separation and one that is deeply inculcated with a cultural mythos of human superiority. Simply put, this way of getting at the issue actually fostered the very sense of a "humans versus nature" rift that underlain the problem in the first place.


image above: Is this what it will come to?
From
http://www.jpgmag.com/photos/563504

Today, however, the rhetorical tide has shifted even as the oceanic one has threatened to rise. Now the pitch is more akin to "Save the Humans," since it's our own vulnerable and somewhat maladapted arses that are on the line at this point. It was sheer hubris to believe that the world itself needed saving from human interventions; the Earth and its life-giving capacities are resilient and will almost certainly (at least on a geological time scale) survive whatever we throw at it short of total nuclear pulverization. In fact, many other life forms would flourish without us here, with Nature rapidly re-wilding even the concrete jungles we've created. So it's really about saving ourselves these days, which is a more realistic aim and one that is consistent with our actual place in the web of life.

It's also an easier sell for most people. Advocating for the preservation of a seemingly unimportant animal species as against many human jobs and their families' wellbeing is not particularly persuasive, as spotted owl advocates found out some years ago (even today, I still see faded bumper stickers saying "Spotted Owl Tastes Like Chicken"). A much more potent argument is that those same loggers would be put out of work by deforestation and the clear-cutting of old growth stands, since they rely on the renewal of the resource in order to have continuous employment in their region. Indeed, this logic -- human engagement with the environment in the context of renewal capacities -- can be a powerful avenue for sustainability advocacy to address both human and nonhuman needs.

Let me illustrate the point clearly, and briefly. I recently asked some of my students whether water was a scarce or abundant resource. Being good environmentalists, they mostly reflected upon the hard-to-deny fact that water is scarce and getting scarcer -- it's the "new oil" and "blue gold" as various outlets continually suggest. There's a truth in this perspective, and yet water can also be seen as an abundant resource in which the planet's evaporation-rainfall cycle continually renews it. We can actually quantify the amount of water it takes to maintain a local aquifer or the flow of a river at healthy levels, and this is sometimes known as the "recharge rate" of how much it would be necessary to put back in to keep the water flowing. Swimming pool owners in hot climates, for example, often fill their pools a little bit each morning to compensate for evaporation, and thus perform a low-tech version of recharging their water levels in this manner.

In fact, every resource has an inherent recharge rate , in the sense that the "balance of a system can be expressed as a relationship relating all of the inputs and outputs into or out of the system." Water is perhaps the easiest to measure, as in the swimming pool example, although in the real world variables such as soil moisture levels and the location of stormwater basins can make the calculations somewhat more complex. Still, rates are estimable if not outright calculable in most locales, suggesting that in practice we can find the balance point between output (i.e., what we consume) and input (i.e., what gets replaced) for any given resource. Using this framework, the distinction between renewable and nonrenewable resources become blurred, since everything has an inherent (or at least potential) rate of renewal and can thus be sustained over time.

This may seem counterintuitive, since we've been accustomed to viewing resources like oil and minerals as nonrenewable, but that's only because we've applied a human time scale to such commodities. The planet might in fact produce more of them, although it could take millions or even billions of years. The resources that take the longest time to replenish are also among the most costly to extract and likewise oftentimes contribute most directly to the problems of pollution and climate change that we presently face; furthermore, we can't claim to fully understand what the consequences would be if they were completely depleted in rapid fashion as we are seemingly aiming toward. Resources like air and water that have faster recharge rates are among the most basic for survival and are also the most vulnerable to disruptions in their renewal cycles. Food sources recharge fairly quickly as well, as do soils for growing, although less so than air and water; timber resources take a bit longer but can still renew within human time spans.

So here's my recommendation for sustaining the planet's fecundity, and for saving ourselves in the process: consumption within recharge rates, but no more. Air, water, and food are abundant and renew quickly, and thus can be consumed at significant levels. Coal, oil, uranium, and natural gas recharge very slowly and therefore should only be consumed at very small levels (if at all) consistent with how long it would likely take to replace them. Trees might still be used for human purposes, but only as fast as they will grow back or can be replanted. Solar radiation, geothermal energy, wind power, and tidal cycles renew continually, and their recharge rates are internally driven, so they can be utilized widely and abundantly.

Thich Nhat Hanh refers to something very much like this as "mindful consumption," which he contrasts with the unmindful practices that are "doing violence to our home" and have led the world to the doorstep of "catastrophic climate changes," yielding a pervasive sense of "violence, hate, discrimination, and despair." In his moving book The World We Have, Hanh illustrates the potential for positive alternatives with the story of "the vessel of appropriate measure":

"Since the bowl is exactly the right size, we always know just how much to eat. We never overeat, because overeating brings sickness to our bodies.... We see that people who consume less are healthier and more joyful, and that those who consume a lot may suffer very deeply.... Mindful consumption brings about health and healing, for ourselves and for our planet."

Obviously we must consume in order to survive, but if we do so outside the bounds of an "appropriate measure" our survival is placed in grave jeopardy. If someone who is cold burns down an orchard to stay warm for a night, they will likely have to cope with hunger the next day; in this manner humanity often seems to find itself cascading from one crisis to the next, as each quick-fix intervention leads to a new (and perhaps more intractable) problem. People inclined to get rankled over any sentiment that encourages us to do with a bit less of some particular item might consider what it would be like if we were forced to try and survive with less (or none at all) of everything, which may be in store if we fail to act. Consuming within recharge rates is a way to ensure not only our short-term but also our long-range existence on this remarkable, self-renewing world that sustains us.

Randall Amster, J.D., Ph.D., teaches Peace Studies at Prescott College, and is the Executive Director of the Peace & Justice Studies Association. His most recent book is Lost In Space: The Criminalization, Globalization, and Urban Ecology of Homelessness (LFB Scholarly 2008).

Getting a Camel

SUBHEAD: What do you get when you design a horse by committee?

By George Mobus on 17 June 2009 in Question Everything
http://questioneverything.typepad.com/

Answer: You should at least get a camel, but with this situation you won't even get an ungulate.


image above: Arabian camel from http://bsnyderblog.blogspot.com/2009/02/do-you-need-integration-patterns-you.html

Today the Obama administration unveils its 'plan' for regulating the financial industry. This looks like the classical closing of the barn door after the horse is out. They are assuming that the economy, and hence the financial basis of that economy, will recover and we will be once again on the borrow-so-we-can-consume track to Nowheresville. Then, once the economy is running again, these regulations will kick in and all will be rosy thereafter.

Perhaps I should smoke what they are smoking in the White house so that I could stop worrying about outcomes and reality.

The proposed regulations look a lot (to me anyway) like what we call a kluge in engineering. You throw together a bunch of reactive solutions to a set of problems in the hope that they will somehow all work together to keep the 'device' working. Complex systems have all these little pesky variables that need to be 'controlled', so you look at each one individually, figure out how to apply some local 'fix', and then go on to the next problem.


Only what too often happens is that the fix for one problem variable causes something else to go haywire. After all, the whole thing is a system. Things are connected. A local fix to one variable doesn't mean you are fixing the whole system. This is what we know as unintended consequences.

The system that was already in place was a huge kluge. So many different agencies with different authorities and different jurisdictions (except that many overlapped in ways making it hard to know who should do what and to whom!)

Now the proposal is to 'patch it up'. Fix it incrementally. Once again I wonder when wisdom will prevail in these decisions.

I have been writing for nearly two years about the need for a more naturalistic approach to governance, one based on hierarchical management with strategic, coordination (tactical and logistical), and operations controls suitably designed and placed, and I still think that is the only feasible way to approach these problems. Instead we limp along trying desperately to make an already proven failed system work. And it is even the wrong system! I have also been writing about the idiocy of our current approach to financial management, banking, liquidity markets, and the like. So now, what I see is that we are going to try to make a bad system work better at being bad for mankind's long-term good!

I need a drink!