Averting catastrophe

[PAdam...@aol.com]

Thanks David for the link to JM Greer. The third article is, as you say, particularly pertinent, and offers a fascinating perspective on peak oil and the "long descent".

 

Greer's articles also give a good insight into why political leadership at this time of economic crisis is so inept, as if we didnt already know! The crooks who got us into this mess have bankrolled the political classes, and these crooks are still in power, with the poor and dispossesed paying the bill.

 

I dont agree with his conclusion on nuclear power though. As Monbiot says, its based on superstition not fact. The potential to develop cleaner and safer technologies exists. Dont forget that burning coal releases radionuclides too. Of course, we need to power down and save energy. A balanced and pragmatic approach is needed, not knee jerk reactions

 

In reply to Roger's question - can we avert catastrophe? - I have no doubt we can, but the question is will we?

 

Society neither understands the problem nor has the will to change. This is why I believe that society is now very vulnerable to extremist political movements. While the haves were being very well paid by the have nots, through the con tricks of consumerism and the chimera of unlimited growth, the charade of democracy suited them. If consumers are no longer able to spend, then a new model of slavery will be needed.

 

A political vacuum is emerging. What will fill it?

 

Patrick

 

 

[DavidT]

On 8 Noll 2011, at 22:19, PAdam...@aol.com wrote:

A political vacuum is emerging. What will fill it?

It is capitalism's endgame creating the vacuum: it is highly significant that the world's rich are getting far, far richer during this recession and the rich/poor divide widening faster than ever.

The question of what will fill it (not in the same words though) has crossed my mind. I can 'belong' - that is, support and promote - not a single political party because they are all, every last one, wedded to the idea of growth. But that's just a personal take, based upon current circumstances. None of us have a clue as to the real answer and the unknown is always frightening.

David

[TIMC...@aol.com]

 

 

In a message dated 09/12/2011 09:53:51 GMT Standard Time, grap...@tmprinting.ie writes:

I can 'belong' - that is, support and promote - not a single political party because they are all, every last one, wedded to the idea of growth.

 

Hi David,

i thought this should be the  natural place for a Green party, to some extent my vote was due to some lip service to the concept of reduced population growth.

 

As we've said here before there has to be some discussion around how we can at least aim for a reduced population with lower individual footprints.

 

There is no espousal of any concept related to a steady state economy; we actually had only one lecture on it in my economics course. It was dismissed an unworkable concept but even then the mathematician in me balked at the mainstream concept of infinite exponential growth on a finite Earth.

 

i would see some nirvana type endpoint  as being a steady sub 1 billion people living with a reasonably comfortable lifestyle. Our nature appears to prohibit any such possibility, our politicians will still be wondering why they can't fix the world when the 10 billionth human is born in 2050.

 

i'm not relishing the world view on my 95th birthday!

 

Tim

[DavidT]

On 9 Noll 2011, at 10:46, TIMC...@aol.com wrote:

I can 'belong' - that is, support and promote - not a single political party because they are all, every last one, wedded to the idea of growth.

 

Hi David,

i thought this should be the  natural place for a Green party, to some extent my vote was due to some lip service to the concept of reduced population growth.

 

I used to think this. Then the Green party got into bed with Fianna Fail and proved what a fool I'd been.

And even since losing office and almost their entire support base, the official GP has still stuck to the 'growth' line. Green growth, perhaps, but we still live on the same planet, with the same limitations.

Can anyone set up a successful political party whose line is, "vote for less"?

David

[Roger Priddle]

"Vote for Less" will only work as a slogan (and philosophy) when all of us with way too much have reduced our consumption to the level of those who already have much less.  It's the only way we earn any credibility.

5% of the worlds population (USA, or North America, or Western Civilization, or  consume 25% of the worlds resources - some thing like that.  I suspect the ratio was much closer before the 20th century and the wide-spread development of oil.

Since the energy was so cheap, we learned to waste it.  It was easier to install a bigger furnace than to insulate properly.  (Ok, I live in a cold climate and it's snowing outside my window - influences my examples...)

Still, I like "Vote for Less" as a slogan better than "We ran out and we're screwed, but so is everyone else..." 

I find Green to be "less bad" than the others.  Beyond that, I try to demonstrate "Less" in the way I live my life.  I really don't know what else to do.

Roger.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Monbiot Discussions" group.
To post to this group, send email to monbiot...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to monbiot-discu...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/monbiot-discuss?hl=en.

--
Those who dance are considered insane by those who can't hear the music.  (George Carlin)

First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.  (Mahatma Gandhi)

Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed individuals can change the world: indeed, it's the only thing that ever has!  (Margaret Meade)

[Lila Smith]

Hi guys

Well we just had our elections and the green party has jumped to the third largest party in New Zealand, huge swing to greens.

 

Lila Smith
www.windwand.co.nz
Taranaki Tourism Website
www.windwand.co.nz/organickitchengarden.htm
Organic Kitchen Gardening
Mob 021230 7962
06 7512942
201 Omata Road
New Plymouth
New Zealand

--

[Duncan Hewitt]

Fantastic news Lila :D

I hope your growing is going well - all of our trees survived 'the worst summer for tree planting' according to a friend of mine in the know. Luckily we're in flood plain so not as bad as some parts of the UK - poor buggers.

Duncan

[Lila Smith]

http://snd.sc/qFqC9R

Hi Duncan, the above url is my radio show which I do weekly now and just love it, these are the shows online..best thing I ever did...the gardens are fantastic, masses of tomatoes on the way, new baby potatoes and basil off and going.  the seven week compost is really doing well and steaming away, we put in some artworks this year and have big bamboo tepee's, we are feeding heaps of people, however the government has a new food bill they want to bring in, which means no-one can grow food and give it away, shocking eh.....however as I said how the hell do they police that....everything is humming along well gardening wise and work wise, but there is a lot of unemployment right now and its on the increase...

[Duncan Hewitt]

A food bill banning the free sharing of food? You know if that goes through, it'll just go under ground...

...sorry - just had to ;)

But seriously, what a farce! I assume it's under the flag of health and safety and possible bug outbreaks through untreated, unprocessed foods? Bah and humbug.

I'll stop by your show and have a listen - thanks for the links!

[PAdam...@aol.com]

In a message dated 09/12/2011 11:23:51 GMT Standard Time, grap...@tmprinting.ie writes:

Can anyone set up a successful political party whose line is, "vote for less"?

Very dificult. Few yet believe the era of growth is over, and even fewer are prepared for the consequences.

 

Peak Oil was probably 2005. In recent years the rich have become much richer, while the rest are on a downslide. Coincidence?

 

Growth has funded not only consumerism, but also public spending by Governments. Now that growth seems over - the pressure is on for Governments to cut spending. This will mean worse welfare benefits and pensions, worse education, health care, public transport etc. It wont be the rich who feel this.It will increase the gap between rich and poor. If the poor become too poor to consume, due both to decreasing incomes and commodity inflation, then the show is over. The model of a subservient consuming population supporting the wealthy, who control everything, is over.

 

So, what next? Rationing of goods, as happened in the Communist bloc pre 1990, where the working class had guaranteed benefits alongside material poverty, while the "nomenclatura" had access to everything they wanted? Hard to imagine the rachet going backwards. Something else very nasty could happen instead.

 

The alternative is a democratic and decentralised society, which aims for stability and quality. This needs a steady state economy, where progress is measured in much more than just material growth.

 

A steady state economy based on stabilty and decentralisation was, I thought, at the heart of the Green mainifesto. No growth is sustainable if it has no end. I doubt if many Green voters actually realise this. There is, however, a diference between growth and development, and between consumption and investment.

 

Not being an economist, I would simply ask - what are the prospects of a Keynesian investment in sustainable energy, agriculture and transport happening without somehow the rich stealing the proceeds and leaving everybody else feeling they have been robbed and just wanting more?

 

We are never going to get anything steady state or sustainable while those at the top of the pyramid continue to appropriate the most. Without transparent fairness and equity it wont happen.

 

Patrick

[john]

'vote for less...."

There have been a flurry of polls published this week that indicate
that most people's reaction to both the financial crisis and the
growing wealth gap is to take benefits away from the poor, and to
spend less on the environment. For the first time since its start, in
1964 (I think), an annual survey in the US found that a majority would
always favour growth over the environment.
There is a very strong part of human psychology that has a tendency to
side with the powerful, and turn on those we perceive as beneath us.
This increases, I think, in times of crisis. Add to this the fact that
the complexity of modern society removes any real, personal sense of
direct responsibility for, or threat from, the natural environment,
and I cannot see how a genuinely green party could ever be more than a
fringe divertion.

I, personally, have come to the overwhelmingly depressing conclusion
that the destruction of the natural environment as we know even now,
the complex ecosystems, is inevitable.
What no-one knows is the likelihood of humans surviving this. I
suspect that we (not including the billions at the bottom who will pay
the price, of course), could survive this, that technology will enable
a large global population to live post-Nature, and that Apocolyptical
scenarios are just that, religious desires for righteous vengence.
After all, there is every likelyhood we wil eventually live on other
planets, or none.

It's not a world I want to live in, but then I won't have to. Will our
descendents feel a sense of loss? To the kids I know, nature already
doesn't exist. Their culture is virtual.

On Dec 9, 2:54 pm, Roger Priddle <roger.prid...@gmail.com> wrote:
> "Vote for Less" will only work as a slogan (and philosophy) when all of us
> with way too much have reduced our consumption to the level of those who
> already have much less.  It's the only way we earn any credibility.
>
> 5% of the worlds population (USA, or North America, or Western
> Civilization, or  consume 25% of the worlds resources - some thing like
> that.  I suspect the ratio was much closer before the 20th century and the
> wide-spread development of oil.
>
> Since the energy was so cheap, we learned to waste it.  It was easier to
> install a bigger furnace than to insulate properly.  (Ok, I live in a cold
> climate and it's snowing outside my window - influences my examples...)
>
> Still, I like "Vote for Less" as a slogan better than "We ran out and we're
> screwed, but so is everyone else..."
>
> I find Green to be "less bad" than the others.  Beyond that, I try to
> demonstrate "Less" in the way I live my life.  I really don't know what
> else to do.
>
> Roger.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

> On Fri, Dec 9, 2011 at 6:23 AM, DavidT <graph...@tmprinting.ie> wrote:

[tmgraphics]

Lila

So what does that mean? Are the Greens going into government? I don't know how your electoral system works, sorry.

David

[tmgraphics]

On 9 Dec 2011, at 18:17, Lila Smith wrote:

however the government has a new food bill they want to bring in, which means no-one can grow food and give it away, shocking eh.

Indeed. What is the motivation behind the bill?

David

[tmgraphics]

John

A realistic take, IMO. The natural environment and its resources are worth trashing if you've no job and a huge mortgage.

Hey - if polls show that people favour reducing the benefits of the poor, then I take it the poor are not being asked. No? 8))

As I've said, green parties get subsumed into mainstream policy making as part of the deal of so-called 'power-sharing'. This splits the party and thus exposes those remaining supportive of greens in government to the sham that green policy can be.

Lila - if the greens get into your government, hold them to account. They become versed in the weasel words and slick advertising which modern governments use and ultimately end up no greener than your average joe.

David