Ellen sent this link to a more useful world clock than those I’ve seen before. Not being familiar with Peter Russell whose site hosts the clock I found this interview. And while Peter seems like an interesting thinker, the gentleman interviewing him is doing more of the hands-on work I like to see. So checkout the the interviewer, Rob Hopkins, too and his idea of the Head, the Heart and the Hands of Energy Descent.
By the Head I mean the concepts of peak oil, arguments for and against localisation as well as any historical examples that we can learn from. The Heart refers to exploring how to actually engage communities in a positive and dynamic way, how to use peak oil as a tool for empowerment rather than leaving people feeling helpless. This part of the exploration is about how to actually facilitate change, and the dynamics of cultural transformation. The Hands refers to the practical aspects, could the UK become self sufficient in food and how? How much well managed woodland would it take to heat a town with efficient CHPs? Can local materials be used to retrofit houses?
Rob Hopkins defines energy descent as being:
the continual decline in net energy supporting humanity, a decline which mirrors the ascent in net energy that has taken place since the Industrial Revolution. It also refers to a future scenario in which humanity has successfully adapted to the declining net fossil fuel energy availability and has become more localised and self-reliant. It is a term favoured by people looking towards energy peak as an opportunity for positive change rather than an inevitable disaster.
Listen to Rob talk about permaculture and energy descent here and read about an Energy Descent Action Plan here on Transition Town Totnes, the weblog of “the UK’s first town exploring how to prepare for a carbon constrained, energy lean world … responding to the twin challenges of Peak Oil and Climate Change.”
I still have to listen to the interview, but this stuff is really cool:
http://transitiontowns.org/
The more towns and cities can initiate programs to work actively toward making the transition to lower consumption, well, I guess it’s really the more lives will be saved. Nothing less.
There’s a group here in Boulder doing something like this. It’s called Boulder County Going Local!:
http://www.bouldercountygoinglocal.com/index.html
Their aim is ultimately to make Boulder County as self sufficient as possible in terms of food, energy, etc.
I do think these approaches make sense. They’re probably one of the key kinds of things to get involved in as we head into the interesting times of the coming decades.
Sounds like your Boulder group is doing just sort of thing that Rob is advocating, John. I’ll have to find out what if anything is going on in my area. Kind of figure I’d be aware of something like that, but I haven’t gone looking for it.
In this post Rob says “I must confess, [population] is a subject I try to avoid, as as soon as one starts to discuss it, one can feel the British National Party and xenophobes and bigots of every persuasion rubbing their hands.”
He continues: “My take is that yes, of course with population levels as they are and consumption as it is, we are too many. Clearly we need to stabilise population, but my sense is that reducing our footprints to one planet which we need to do anyway and which Transition Initiatives are a powerful tool for achieving, makes it possible for us all to co-exist at present population levels.”
Rather takes us back to some recent discussions we’ve had, does it not?
I think Rob’s position is typical of many people doing “front-line” work. They are helping people cope with so much change already, the thought of talking about population reduction is just too much.
Well, one thing I like about the peak oil folks is that they generally do appreciate the population issue. I think he may be a little optimistic when he says:
“but my sense is that reducing our footprints to one planet which we need to do anyway and which Transition Initiatives are a powerful tool for achieving, makes it possible for us all to co-exist at present population levels.”
That may leave out some effects of population involving species loss, and may miss that one less person equals zero added consumption, etc. And my recent reading of William Catton’s “Overshoot” confirms to me that present levels are simply too high. But it’s good he does acknowledge the basic point. And I’ve seen bits on some of the peak oil sites, like the Oil Drum, that seem really to appreciate the problem of continued population growth. I suspect Al Bartlett has helped there. He’s a big name in both population and peak oil circles.
My country are starting the renewable energy research but focusing on using on other countries for profits instead of using locally due to some “limitation” of my little country Singapore.
It’s been rather depressing to see lacking of knowledge and urgency by urban Singaporeans to mitigate low energy future.
My research comes down to one final point, high oil prices = high natural gas prices = high electricity prices = high domestic liabilities cost (rental, utilities, imports, transportation) = high inflation = high gap of rich and poor = suffering and slavery for those in heavy debts…
High cost of living and inability to control income will eventually lead to chaos if there is no proper energy decent plans for big cities…
Pray hard.
http://sgenergycrisis.blogspot.com