Yesterday, Kyle sent me this mail:
I was youtubing it, enjoying my new broadband, and came across this interview snip with David Holmgren, founder of the “permaculture” project:
He’s talking about the future of suburbia, and is rather more optimistic than that bigot Kunstler. What I got out of it was that he expresses very well something I think, that we can’t be too hopeful about grand top-down plans – though he’s afraid of them, I’m not, I just think they’re not likely to happen – and he thinks positive change will come about from necessity. He presents it all as an “organic” process – by which he means a smooth and natural one, though of course organic processes are not always very neat and pleasant…
If you’re waiting around for government to do something, then things look pretty dark. If you’re looking for ways in which people can do things for themselves, then things look a bit brighter. So this is “green psychology” in that it’s a way of looking at the world which keeps you hopeful and focused. I’ve just seen quite a bit of loss of hope and frustration in the blogosphere lately, and seen it in your posts, too.
Kyle is right, I have been feeling a bit down lately, and frustrated, regarding the apparent lack of action. Nothing depresses more than driving on the freeway at peak hours, and being a part of this seemingly endless flow of CO2 spewing machines. I want someone to step in, and say stop. My fantasy of a conductor is going nowhere however. Not even Obama comes close, when I listen to him speak and propose his timid plan for cooling the planet. Don’t get me wrong, I know the man has to think about politics, and getting elected, and pushing only as far as the crowd will allow.
While watching the David Holmgren‘s video, what struck me most was not so much what he had to say, as how he delivered his message. No rush, no fear, no need to control. Instead, calm assurance that events will lead us back to where we need to be again, and that individuals will naturally organize towards increased energy efficiency strategies. As somebody who is informed about the perils of climate change, I have found it hard to withstand the tension from not having an immediate, quick fix solution. David Holmgren is reminding us that the straight path may not be the way to go here.
I also connected with Homgren‘s emphasis on ‘retrofitting‘. Many proposed solutions to global warming, jump to the creation of new infrastructures, new cars, new cities, new houses, new gadgets. Our throwaway culture has found its way in the climate fight. Less sexy, but a lot more sustainable, is the notion of retrofitting existing environments to enable a carbon neutral lifestyle. Maybe now is the time to make ours the 4R’s:
‘Reduce-Reuse-Recycle-Retrofit‘.
I enjoyed the video and learned a lot. Great find.
I think that both and all will be required. In other words, I agree that nobody is going to implement a top-down plan that includes where people must live, what life must be like, and so forth, thank goodness. I doubt that anyone will design a city from scratch like, say, Wash. DC was initially done, I think. So, that type of overall “top-down” solution won’t happen, and we probably don’t want it to happen. But, some top-down policies (implemented by wise leaders, hopefully, in a democratic context) will be necessary, even for the type of individual action that is discussed. For example, we’ll need a “lift” in carbon prices such as might come from a carbon tax or a “cap-and-auction” system. And, the government should also chip in (hopefully smartly) on upping R&D for new energy solutions. And, some key standards need to be set, so that cars must have good fuel efficiency and so that home appliances are more energy-efficient. So, those types of top-down policies will be helpful and necessary, to set the context for individual decisions and actions and the type of evolution discussed in the video.
Regarding mood, although I do feel impatient and frustrated sometimes (especially when I get pounced on by denialists!), I see awareness and moods shifting a bit. Although slow, I feel that things are at least starting to move. After all, all of the presidential candidates now see global warming as a big thing that must be addressed. Even though the coverage of the NY Times is not all that good, at least the paper’s stance reflects deep concern about global warming. And, the Baptists are moving in the direction of seeing the need to care for the Earth, and the Pope is speaking out, in favor of the environment. If we actually listed all the groups and leaders (whether scientific groups, religious groups, presidential candidates, universities, and etc.) who have expressed deep concern about global warming, and who have said we need to address it, the list would be very impressive and compelling. So, I feel that things are tipping in the right direction. Still much more to do, of course, but you and folks on this blog are at the beginning of a (necessary) sea-change in how we (humans) consider our responsibility to the environment. Indeed, it’s one of the biggest lessons that mankind (and womankind) have to learn. Put another way, people here are involved in helping the human race understand, and face up to, its responsibility to be good beings and attend to our surroundings. If you think about it, the challenge and the goal are cosmic, galactic, historic, in short, HUGE. That’s hard, but it’s also a very moving mission and even a great privilege. Think what our generation’s children will say if we don’t do it. But, think what our children may think if we show some leadership in actually doing it. I don’t know what could be more important.
So, I feel energized, at least usually. A good “fight”, for a good cause, can feel good.
But, I admit, it’s hard to do everything from a keyboard. If Stanford students don’t start speaking out (more) soon, I feel like marching through campus with a big sign. Or something. I think action helps. It can clear the mind too.
Anyhow, that’s it for now. The video was great.
“But, I admit, it’s hard to do everything from a keyboard.”
Holmgren has said, “you can solve the problems of the world in a garden.”
He overstates it a bit; he means the problems he’s concerned about, like food security, pollution, high levels of consumption, and so on. But it’s a start.
Live your life as you wish others to live. Tell people about how you live. Share with others your vision for a good future. Once a season, write letters on your concerns of the day to your local, state and federal elected representatives. In time, all this spreads, and what was once radical becomes conventional.
The cup of change is being filled drop by drop in the dark. We hear each drop, and we are impatient because we hear the drops but don’t see how full the cup is. At some point it will overflow.
And it does work. Consider this recent speech by a Queensland cabinet minister. Remember also that Australia has just six states and two territories, so a state minister here carries more weight and is less easily ignored than one in the US with its 50 states and one territory.
Of course, making a speech and getting some measures through is not final, after all just look at Jimmy Carter’s speech in 1977. He offered Americans a positive vision, but one of some austerity; he lost the next election. I do think though that times are changed since 1977, the issues Carter mentioned were not really in the Western public consciousness in the way they are now.
Drop by drop.
Kiashu, I like your image of the cup filling slowly with each drop. Kind of like Al Gore’s frog in boiling water, but its hopeful counterpart. There are drops, more and more of them. The big question is will there be enough, and will the cup get filled fast enough? We are in a race, some people have already started the race, others are thinking about it, and others do not think the race is real.
By the way, you should send your most recent post to Andrew Revkin at DotEarth – the one that explains in great details the maths of global warming. It is brilliant and should be read by as many people as possible. As I said in my comment, nowhere else have I gotten such a clear expose of our predicament.
TYPO alert, in one case, his name is spelled without the l, should be Holmgren in all cases…
Taiwan Typo Techie
AND
2. why is Kunstler called a bigot? Ouch. What did he say or write to deserve that? If true, where is the citation. OUCH.
and 3. this from OZ: urgent
Scientists target safe-climate future
by Ryan King
March 10, 3008
Friends of the Earth, Australia, working in conjunction with many of the world’s foremost climate scientists recently published a report which should have quickly pervaded into mainstream media. It is a detailed, 100-plus page manifesto imploring immediate, radical action beyond not only the proposed climate change responses by the IPCC, mainstream environmental agencies, and world governments but outside the procedures and proceedings of our national and international authorities. Coverage of the ground-breaking report, however, remains mostly in the realm of climate sites and blogs, absent not only from major sources such as Reuters and Associated Press, but even from major conservation and environmental new sites.
In “Climate Code Red: the case for a sustainability emergency”, David Spratt and Phillip Sutton call on world governments to issue a declaration of a state of “sustainability emergency” in response to the rapidly deteriorating climate, focusing mostly on the massive arctic ice melt of summer 2007 as an indicator of the need for immediate action. “Climate Code Red” is a compilation of the most recent scientific studies, observations of climate change and call for radical response more than it is an analysis of any specific aspect of global warming. The review is thorough and presents the most recent and emerging analyses of global change. The factors leading to the increasing pace of Arctic ice disintegration, effects of deforestation, terrestrial and marine carbon sequestration, species loss, tipping points and climate threshold sensitivity are all considered and linked in the report.
In addition to citing renowned experts including NASA’s James Hansen, acclaimed scientist and writer James Lovelock, “Code Red” relies heavily on the testimony of a broad spectrum of voices. Environmental activists, climatologists, UN officials and others all champion the “radical is now reasonable” sentiment. The extensive review also characterizes environmental degradation, war, social inequity, peak oil, resource scarcity, and climate change as crucial, inter-linked issues.
“Climate Code Red” presents a painfully evident image that the continued reliance on ineffective and incomplete environmental policy, such as mild emissions reductions set in an uncertain future, will result in catastrophe on an unprecedented and global scale.
There is a substantial lag, though, in the transmission and spread of the emerging opinions in the global change community. In addition to the details of our impending environmental crises, “Climate Code Red” identifies some of the psychological and social influences contributing to the slow reaction to science. The review cites faults such as hesitancy to sound “radical” or “crazy” by proposing drastic changes to transport and energy sectors among the public, politicians, businesses, climate action groups, and even many scientists.
The solutions to global change are rooted in behavioral, not technological alterations. We have adequate information and technology to create sustainable populations. The rapid and requisite shift towards sustainability remains bound in the regulations, rules, and proceedings of ineffective systems. The majority of society in the “developed” world idles in the culturally-reinforced concept that sustainable solutions can be innovated, bought, or sold. Experts and scientists wallow in despair and defeat at the ineptitude of typical policy and practice, frustrated with inadequate remedies to compounding, urgent issues. And the mass of global society remains virtually unaware of both the problems and solutions of the sustainability crisis.
Despite the effort of authors and contributors to Climate Code Red, “business-as-usual” pervades in media reporting, environmental practice, policy, and even within the many of the very scientists at the core of conservation and global change research. This generation of biologists, climatologists, and environmentally-concerned citizens is faced with the tasks of innovating and implementing the “business-as-unusual” paradigm as a last-moment global crisis response. This will be achieved in unison with some of the existing power structures, or at their expense, for it is painfully evident to us that “business-as-usual” will soon result in unacceptable consequences to our biosphere. The first step in this movement is the widespread dissemination of the knowledge of our situation, the implications, and the solutions.
“Climate Code Red” ends with the sobering but crucial statement, “We now need to ‘think the unthinkable’, because the sustainability emergency is not so much a radical idea as now simply a necessary mode of action.” The authors and contributors of “Climate Code Red” have taken the first big leap calling for the sustainability movement to switch from a passive retreat to an emergency response; whether or not other scientists, activists, conservationists, policy makers, reporters and society in general follow their path will determine the planet’s fate.
Marguerite, I think Revkin is alright without my “wisdom” 😉 But you should never be shy to forward links to people if you think they’ll be interested.
Danny, see Kunstler’s September 12, 2001 entry, in which he advocates the complete depopulation and destruction of Kabul, Baghdad, the West Bank and Gaza Strip, Damascus, and Tripoli, 21 million people in all.
When Stalin or Pol Pot drove people out of cities and into the countryside, the deaths of millions were the result. The deliberate destruction of entire cities and the death of a good portion of their inhabitants we call “genocide.” Stalin and Pol Pot at least gave them hoes and tried to get them farming and millions still died; Kunstler just wanted to drive them out into the wilderness with nothing.
Everyone says nasty things in the heat of the moment, things which they don’t really feel or wouldn’t really do. But Kunstler has not in the six and a half years since ever recanted, modified or moderated his words. It’s thus reasonable to assume that he stands by them. He thinks that the destruction of cities and genocide are good things.
People who advocate genocide are bigots.
By September 14th he wanted to invade Afghanistan, by the 17th Iraq, by the 20th Pakistan, by the 30th he was speaking of how “the US may not be able to avoid a wider military engagement with the Muslim world” – ie war with the Saudis, Iran, Egypt, Syria, everyone.
Kunstler is a warmongering bigot who advocates genocide.
That does not mean he has nothing worthwhile to say. But it does mean that we should take his suggestions with a degree of caution. A person with a callous indifference to human life is perhaps not the best person to be asking for his plans for a restructuring of the global economy.
[…] then Kyle’s powerful […]
[…] Google’s top-down approach should be considered alongside bottom-up strategies such as David Holmgren’s Permaculture Project, for […]
[…] seems as if everyone’s got an opinion on how to handle the American suburban sprawl . . . What I think: we are not […]
[…] organically. Cities and suburbs are experiencing an overall greening, with many people involved in urban farming, starting with children in schools. There are trees along all the streets and the freeways. People […]
[…] as I am, in planning for our global future, I suggest you pay a visit to permaculture guru, David Holmgren’s new website. Future Scenarios is impressive by the depth of its thinking regarding the […]
[…] This includes the need for strengthened communities, and some ideas such as David Holmgren’s permaculture that could be adapted to living in the big cities. Note that accumulating more stuff, driving […]
Thank you very much for the helpful post!
Guys always have no idea why they cannot burn fat or have a better figure. The problem is people keep searching for a silver bullet which gives them what they really need immediately while all they need to do is keep reading useful posts like this as well as implement the exercises.