This entry was posted on Tuesday, March 13th, 2007 at 9:53 PM and filed under Articles.
Follow comments here with the RSS 2.0 feed.
Skip to the end and leave a response. Trackbacks are closed.
3 Responses to “Reversal of Fortune”
ben stagg said:
The article was very informative and broad based. One thing struck me however. It’s portrayal of the dramatic change in our living standards was mainly related to the Industrial Revolution, when we are in fact now in the digital/electronic age.
I personaly have no doubt that the move away from fossil fuels and many other non-renewable materials has been stalled by vested interests and that many of the alternative technologies that we now need would be much further advanced otherwise. We could have transformed the way we live over the last thirty years, but havn’t.
With crude oil now well in excess of $50.00 a barrel, these alternative technologies are set to break into the main stream, but I would guess it is a twenty year process that should already be behind us.
Michael,
How amazing that you sent out this article. I read it over the weekend because my mother called to ask if I knew anything about Mother Jones Magazine and that there was this incredible article. As she was talking I found it online, much to her surprise.
As I started to read it; it struck me that I had just been thinking about these exact same issues. Carbondale is facing the possibility of a Home Depot coming into the center of our town. The town is divided over it. Growth vs. no growth. One referendum has already turned down one proposal on a close vote. My own attorney also represents the developer. We debated the merits of this over lunch recently. I took the tack that the concept of economic growth is so engrained in our culture that it overwhelms every other option. The essential fallacy with growth is that it is unsustainable, by definition. Resources are either finite or renewable only to a certain limit. Peak oil is coming and there is nothing to replace it. Society as we know it today will collapse without the fossil fuel input. Therefore, we should begin planning for that and actually reverse the trend of growth.
Our American economy uses resources at a rate five times greater than our share of population. Most of these resources are coming from outside our borders. In effect, we have been stealing them. Iraq is an example. They should belong to the people of the region from where they come. By establishing puppet dictators we get the resources at a fraction of what they are really worth. That is colonialism. Niger and Nigeria are examples.
The attorney said he believes science and technology will produce a replacement for fossil fuels. And what if they don’t?
Mckibben is just an excellent writer. I found the philosophical portion of the essay equally fascinating. Great choice.
The article was very informative and broad based. One thing struck me however. It’s portrayal of the dramatic change in our living standards was mainly related to the Industrial Revolution, when we are in fact now in the digital/electronic age.
I personaly have no doubt that the move away from fossil fuels and many other non-renewable materials has been stalled by vested interests and that many of the alternative technologies that we now need would be much further advanced otherwise. We could have transformed the way we live over the last thirty years, but havn’t.
With crude oil now well in excess of $50.00 a barrel, these alternative technologies are set to break into the main stream, but I would guess it is a twenty year process that should already be behind us.
As for Pat’s comment, it must be said that economic growth is not necessarily connected to fossil fuel input. Look at the last ten years where economic growth has been in large part due to the digital revolution.
I also question whether Pat is right in saying that by establishing puppet dictators, we get recources for a fraction of what they are really worth. My understanding (and please correct me if I’m wrong) is that there is a global market out there and Institutions such as OPEC for instance establishes a value for oil. I don’t think that we are ’stealing’ those recources but undoubtably the money or goods paid is not in many cases getting through to the people in the Country from which the recources are supplied.
The article was very informative and broad based. One thing struck me however. It’s portrayal of the dramatic change in our living standards was mainly related to the Industrial Revolution, when we are in fact now in the digital/electronic age.
I personaly have no doubt that the move away from fossil fuels and many other non-renewable materials has been stalled by vested interests and that many of the alternative technologies that we now need would be much further advanced otherwise. We could have transformed the way we live over the last thirty years, but havn’t.
With crude oil now well in excess of $50.00 a barrel, these alternative technologies are set to break into the main stream, but I would guess it is a twenty year process that should already be behind us.
Ben Stagg
Posted on 15-Mar-07 at 4:07 am | PermalinkMichael,
How amazing that you sent out this article. I read it over the weekend because my mother called to ask if I knew anything about Mother Jones Magazine and that there was this incredible article. As she was talking I found it online, much to her surprise.
As I started to read it; it struck me that I had just been thinking about these exact same issues. Carbondale is facing the possibility of a Home Depot coming into the center of our town. The town is divided over it. Growth vs. no growth. One referendum has already turned down one proposal on a close vote. My own attorney also represents the developer. We debated the merits of this over lunch recently. I took the tack that the concept of economic growth is so engrained in our culture that it overwhelms every other option. The essential fallacy with growth is that it is unsustainable, by definition. Resources are either finite or renewable only to a certain limit. Peak oil is coming and there is nothing to replace it. Society as we know it today will collapse without the fossil fuel input. Therefore, we should begin planning for that and actually reverse the trend of growth.
Our American economy uses resources at a rate five times greater than our share of population. Most of these resources are coming from outside our borders. In effect, we have been stealing them. Iraq is an example. They should belong to the people of the region from where they come. By establishing puppet dictators we get the resources at a fraction of what they are really worth. That is colonialism. Niger and Nigeria are examples.
The attorney said he believes science and technology will produce a replacement for fossil fuels. And what if they don’t?
Mckibben is just an excellent writer. I found the philosophical portion of the essay equally fascinating. Great choice.
Thanks,
Posted on 15-Mar-07 at 7:05 am | PermalinkPat
The article was very informative and broad based. One thing struck me however. It’s portrayal of the dramatic change in our living standards was mainly related to the Industrial Revolution, when we are in fact now in the digital/electronic age.
I personaly have no doubt that the move away from fossil fuels and many other non-renewable materials has been stalled by vested interests and that many of the alternative technologies that we now need would be much further advanced otherwise. We could have transformed the way we live over the last thirty years, but havn’t.
With crude oil now well in excess of $50.00 a barrel, these alternative technologies are set to break into the main stream, but I would guess it is a twenty year process that should already be behind us.
As for Pat’s comment, it must be said that economic growth is not necessarily connected to fossil fuel input. Look at the last ten years where economic growth has been in large part due to the digital revolution.
I also question whether Pat is right in saying that by establishing puppet dictators, we get recources for a fraction of what they are really worth. My understanding (and please correct me if I’m wrong) is that there is a global market out there and Institutions such as OPEC for instance establishes a value for oil. I don’t think that we are ’stealing’ those recources but undoubtably the money or goods paid is not in many cases getting through to the people in the Country from which the recources are supplied.
Posted on 16-Mar-07 at 4:16 am | Permalink