The Chatelaine's Keys

Sharon November 16th, 2009

Kjell Aleklett should really pretty much stop talking about climate change, because he looks like a fool when he does.  And that’s not a good thing, given that he’s not one - on energy he’s done deeply important work, and I’d hate to see people dismiss it because he says dumb things about the climate.

Here’s a good example from his screed:

“How will our well-being be affected by the expected growth in population? How will this affect our food supply, our climate, our economy and our hopes for peace? In Copenhagen the hungry will prioritise more food on the table before an unaltered climate. The poor nations want economic growth and we all know that this requires more fossil energy use. To see this we only need to study the development of China or India, or even Sweden from 1945 to 1970. In Copenhagen, this will mean that they will not want to sacrifice economic growth on climate’s altar. Ultimately, it comes down to we, the wealthy nations, not wanting to bear the cost of all the carbon dioxide waste we have dumped into the atmosphere without the poor and hungry also paying out.

In Copenhagen global emissions of carbon dioxide will be discussed and, for the sake of our future climate, it would be a good thing if emissions were reduced. However, according to the human well-being equation, it is not carbon dioxide but, rather, energy that is needed to produce food and to turn the wheels of the economy. By clever marketing of unrealistic future scenarios the IPCC has blinded the world’s politicians – particularly those in the EU – to these facts. Light was shone onto this issue when President Obama noted the importance of energy in a speech some days after his inauguration. He said, “No single issue is as fundamental to our future as energy” and I with many others began to hope for a brighter future when the Nobel prizewinning physicist Steven Chu was appointed as the USA’s Secretary of Energy.”

There’s not a single citation in this article, so, for example, his observation that we use a lot of energy to produce food now is left to stand with his presumption that we will require the same amount of energy to produce food in the long term.  In _A Nation of Farmers_ Aaron and I observe that low-input agriculture has largely kept approximate pace with high input agriculture, and that in periods of climate instability, low input agriculture that improves soil actually does better than industrial agriculture.  So no, we don’t need as much energy as we have been using for food.  Will we have a hard time feeding ourselves?   Undoubtedly, but “we use this much now, which means we must use more later” assumes that we can keep industrial society going on the same track – and even Aleklett knows we can’t.

We’ll also note that Aleklett simply doesn’t believe climate change is a serious issue, and has said so.  He seems, in the article, to be implying that he does, but he’s been more explicit in other writings.  He claims, again completely without evidence that the IPCC scenarios are “unrealistic” – which they are – but in the wrong direction.  All the material evidence – and by this I mean not-up-for-debate stuff like “how fast the ice is melting” which you can see by looking at it, or by fairly simple measures – suggests that the IPCC scenarios are unrealistic in that they *understate* the rate at which climate change *is happening* – not is projected to occur.  He gives lip service to the fact that we should put out less carbon, but then goes on to suggest we need more carbon sources.  

But the biggest and dumbest gap in this is that Aleklett doesn’t seem to have any recognition that addressing climate change *is* about food.  At the simplest levels, countries that are underwater don’t grow a lot of food.  Neither do countries who depend heavily on meltwater from glaciers that dry up and disappear (again, this isn’t a hypothetical, you can go see it).  Aleklett doesn’t seem to be familiar with research that higher temperatures will dramatically reduce yields of wheat, rice and corn, the staple crops that provide the vast majority of the world’s calories.  And desertification (in part caused by climate change, but also caused by the very oil-infused agriculture that Aleklett says we desperately need to preserve) will take large chunks of grainland out of production.  Copenhagen will almost certainly fail, but the idea that people in Copenhagen don’t get that this is about food is just laughably ignorant.  It is Kjell Aleklett who doesn’t seem to grasp that this is very much about food.

But more importantly, and the reason I’m being so hard on him, is that this represents two sides of a strain of thought that I think is truly destructive to the agenda of both Peak Energy and Climate Change.  On the one side, you have peak energy thinkers, frustrated that climate change gets all the attention, who falsely believe that they have to poke holes the fairly iron-clad science of climate change, because they are competing for attention and resources.  On the other side are climate change advocates who ridicule or simply minimize the importance of peak energy, because their assumptions all presume a stable economy and energy supply to build upon.  There’s a “we’re only allowed to have one big central problem, and we have fight over it” attitude, that presents a completely false dichotomy - a dumbass logical error  that a freshman in high school should be able to dissect.

The truth is this – we know for a fact that peak oil is real.  Why do we know this?  Because we’ve seen it happen right here in the USA.  No matter what technologies we use, no matter how much we invest, the US hit peak oil in the early 1970s, and hasn’t passed Saudi Arabia since.  We can look at all the other countries who have done the same.   It is a geological fact of life – and the preponderance of the evidence, slowly, solidly coming in is that the world is at or past its peak, that Saudi Arabia has been fudging its numbers with seawater. 

We know that other resources are going to peak too – and many of them soon.  We’re not sure exactly how much coal there is, but we do know that North American Natural Gas, for example, is a likely near-peak.  We know that we are already seeing high energy price volatility, we know that it is affecting our economy, not to mention our ability to get by personally.  We’re never going to know, year to year, how much food (tied to energy) and heat are going to cost us.   We know that if it isn’t going to get worse in the near-term (which is the more likely scenario, IMHO, since it is already happening), it is going to get worse in the long term, and ethically speaking, screwing the next generation is how the last couple of generations have handled this, and is not ethical.  So there’s not much doubt about this – we’ve got to deal with an energy decline, and rapidly.

The same is true of climate change – the climate is changing.  We know this – we can look at the pictures of glaciers in 1950 and glaciers now.  We can look at the arctic ice.  Anyone who lives near an ocean can go see the houses, once comfortably back from the sea’s edge, now hanging precariously.  We can look at flower bloom, and bird migrations and climate (not weather) patterns and see a consistent and substantial alteration over a very short time.  This is not rocket science.

We also know why the climate is changing.  The Greenhouse effect is not controversial – if it didn’t exist, the earth would be a lifeless rock, so cold it couldn’t support life at night, so hot it couldn’t support it during the day, just like the moon.  We know without any doubt that the gasses in our atmosphere are what warm the climate.  We know that there are more of them.  We know that more of them correspond with warmer periods in history from ice core samples.  We know that each gas has demonstrable warming effect, and we can demonstrate that their concentrations are growing.   You can certainly get more complicated than this, but again, it isn’t rocket science. 

There is no question that climate change is going to radically impact our lives – and soon.  It already is, if, say, you live in a low-lying area, or if you rely on meltwater, or if you are noticing more heat waves and drought or worried about the health consequences to you or your asthmatic daughter or you aging mother.  And just like it is wildly unethical to pass off our energy problems to the next generation, it is even less ethical to pass off our climate problem – because both effect basic things like whether we’ll eat or not.

In both cases, there are sensitive bits up for discussion – precise climate sensitivity, and exactly when the peak is/was.  Nothing is perfect, but overwhelmingly, the debate on both subjects is effectively over.  And that means that the scientists and thinkers on both sides of who are sitting there waving their hands saying “My problem is more important!  No, Mine!” are wasting a lot of time and energy on the false idea that we can’t have two central problems at the same time.  This is dumb – and it delays creating an appropriate response.

The truth is that we have at least two central problems (the economic one is tied to both in the long term), and only people who can get their mind around the combined difficulty will have anything useful to offer.  Yes, we need to know how what fossil fuels are in the ground – and we also can’t burn them rapidly.  Yes, we need to address climate change – and we need to stop lying and claiming that we can have it all – a happy growth economy based on renewable energy, yada yada. 

Thankfully, ther are people doing good work on both issues – people who really get it, like James Hansen and Richard Heinberg.  They haven’t fallen into the false dichotomy.  They haven’t missed that this really is all about “who eats” – and that we can’t see the whole picture of our future just looking through one eyepiece of a pair of binoculars.

• climate , global warming , peak oil
• Comments(20)

Sharon November 2nd, 2009

Interesting paper from the World Bank about why people aren’t making more life changes in relationship to climate change. 

http://www-wds.worldbank.org/external/default/WDSContentServer/IW3P/IB/2009/09/17/000158349_20090917102136/Rendered/PDF/WPS5058.pdf

The author writes:

“Myriad private acts of consumption are at the root of the climate change challenge.  As consumers, individuals hold a reservoir of mitigation capacity.  Roughly 40% of OECD emissions result from decisions by individuals – travel, heating and food purchases.”

That 40% number is actually low – it assumes that we wish to continue on more or less as we have been.  Consumer spending drives 70% of the economy and accounts, depending on how you calculate the number, for considerably over half of all emissions, if you draw the circle properly – radically reducing consumption would have ripple effects – businesses would close, for example, and thus not run their computers and lights all night long. 

The paper goes on to analyze the reasons that people don’t make changes in economics-psychology language, but offers some interesting observations, including a sense of the deep scientific illiteracy that we face.  One in four Americans, for example, can’t identify a single fossil fuel.

This is, of course, pitiable and pathetic, but I don’t think it is the deepest reason, nor do I think that the World Bank gets it quite right.  My own suspicion is that the problem is not that ordinary people are too dumb , but too smart. 

The two “sides” of the climate change story both tell essentially the same narrative.  On one side there is something bad, that will change your world forever, take away your security and do you great harm. On the other, there is the world as we know it, with only a little variation.  Unsurprisingly, most people prefer the more familiar choice.

If you believe the climate skeptics, behind door number 1 is the world as we know it, maybe a little bit warmer and dryer, but whatever, and behind door number 2 a nightmare of rising costs and poverty, one world government and all sorts of other baddies.  If you believe the climate activists, behind door number 1 is the world as we know it, only with renewable energies and maybe a tiny bit higher taxes.  Behind door number 2 is ecological disaster – rising seas, hunger, disease, etc…

Who wouldn’t prefer to offer people a familiar choice – that’s a no-brainer.  The problem is that the conflict between the two stories being told makes people uneasy – most of them instinctively grasp that it will be hard to fix the economy and get us all buying again and also cut our energy by those big numbers people ask about.  Where will the money come from?  And they also instinctively recognize that the climate is changing around them – that you can see and feel it, and that we all know that the climate has changed before.  Being told that this is no big deal doesn’t quite work – even for people who aren’t sure they believe global warming is anthropogenic. 

That is, most people instinctively distrust those who tell us that things will be easy and quick and painless, at the same time that we desperately want to grasp onto an easy and quick and painless solution.  And both sides of the discussion have largely failed to tell the truth – that the only choices out there for us are not “easy and familiar vs. terrible and unfamiliar” but two versions of unfamiliar – one in which we change ourselves in response to a changing world, simultaneously softening the degree of physical change and expanding the degree of personal change, and the other in which we cling desperately to the shattered remains of the familiar in a world that is utterly transformed around us.

If we ever want people to fully grasp the connection between their way of life and the future, we have to tell the truth about it. It won’t be easy or pleasant, but it is only then that we can begin to change.

Sharon

• global warming
• Comments(23)

Sharon October 14th, 2009

You really need to read this: http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=48791

“In a four-degree warmer world, adaptation means “put your feet up and die” for many people in the world, Oxford’s Chris West said bluntly. “In accepting the many alarming impacts, we see that it (a four-degree C increase) is not acceptable.”

“We didn’t save the ozone layer by rationing deodorants,” said Allen. “

I’m married to an astrophysicist, so I know how scientists talk.  I’ve spent a lot of my life as the only non-scientist in a room full of science geeks, and have gotten used to translating them into english.  It drives me nuts, actually, sometimes, my husband’s absolute reluctance to say that anything is so.  Scientific reticence means that you always express *uncertainty* so my husband will calmly observe to you that, yes, in fact, there are a few scientist out there who still believe, say, in the ether, rather than say “there’s no freakin’ ether.”  But, of course, there’s no freakin’ ether.   So I pay attention when they overcome their reticence and say “there is no sustainable per capita carbon emission level.” 

The truth is that if you’ve been watching the emerging evidence, that’s the logical conclusion – in some ways it doesn’t matter what’s in the ground – we simply can’t burn it. 

Sharon

• global warming
• Comments(12)

Sharon October 5th, 2009

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/24/AR2009092402602.html

“Climate researchers now predict the planet will warm by 6.3 degrees Fahrenheit by the end of the century even if the world’s leaders fulfill their most ambitious climate pledges, a much faster and broader scale of change than forecast just two years ago, according to a report released Thursday by the United Nations Environment Program.

The new overview of global warming research, aimed at marshaling political support for a new international climate pact by the end of the year, highlights the extent to which recent scientific assessments have outstripped the predictions issued by the Nobel Prize-winning U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in 2007.

Robert Corell, who chairs the Climate Action Initiative and reviewed the UNEP report’s scientific findings, said the significant global temperature rise is likely to occur even if industrialized and developed countries enact every climate policy they have proposed at this point. The increase is nearly double what scientists and world policymakers have identified as the upper limit of warming the world can afford in order to avert catastrophic climate change.”

I’ve been saying this for years, but I don’t enjoy seeing it in print any more than anyone else.   Especially not before my first cup of tea.  Maybe I should switch to gin .

Sharon

• global warming
• Comments(7)

Sharon June 11th, 2009

Rock, meet hard place.  Hard place, meet rock.  Rock, over here is known as “the economy.”  Hard place, on the other side, can be described as “our energy situation.”  Because while green shoots might look awfully good to a lot of people who are desperate to have the economy go back to what it was, we should remind ourselves that “what it was” involved awfully high energy prices.  Sure, some of it was speculation, and some of it was the Chinese Olympics, and some of it was the falling dollar.  And of course, the good news is that none of those things will ever happen again…we don’t have speculators in the energy markets anymore, of course – we took care of that right off, nor does the dollar ever…oh, wait.  But I can promise that Beijing won’t host the Olympics again for a while, if that helps.   

 $70 isn’t that bad, you argue.  With the economy in recovery, we can afford our gas and heat bills, right?  People won’t decide that they have to save for next winter’s oil bill.  And this recovery is so solid that it won’t matter that tax burdens are headed up to compensate for falling revenues and increasing debt – people will have plenty of money to pay for gas and food and those higher taxes, now that new jobs are being…oh, wait.  It also won’t matter that at higher energy prices, the stimulus money buys less stuff – asphalt paving prices go up, and they hire two fewer guys.  The energy costs of all this highway work and other infrastructure investment goes up, the number of salaries goes down.  But we don’t need those jobs that bad, right?

Nor will the volatility of energy prices and debt servicing matter – a couple of years of people never knowing if they will have enough money for a summer’s a/c, or a winter’s heat, if they’ll be making enough to cover their commute and daycare costs, whether they can afford enough food to keep the pantry full, whether the unemployment benefits will run out or be extended… none of those measures of insecurity will affect consumer behavior at all.  We’re all going to go back to buying stuff.  Nor will the cutting of credit lines, and the addition of bad debt to the balance sheets of the banks, or rising interest rates. And we never did care about the trade deficit, right? 

Rock, you know Hard Place.  Now, let’s meet Immovable Object.  This is climate change – she’ll be with us all the time now.  Think of the current situation as you trapped, rock on one side, hard place on the other, and immovable object is now suspended very slightly above your head.  And oh, yeah, it can move after all – you can’t move it, but it can come crashing down and squash you like a bug. 

Now one of two things is going to happen in the next couple of years – in the climate talks occurring in Europe now, in the painful negotiations with China, in Congress in the US and in Copenhagen.  We’re either going to do something about climate change, or we’re not.  And one of two results is possible if we do something – either it will be sufficient, or it won’t. 

Now I won’t lay odds here on these two bets, although I think I could.  But let’s consider just our choices.  “Do something” on a scale that actually would matter, means that we face higher energy prices.  I realize that a lot of climate activists don’t like to talk about this part, but the truth is the truth – even if we attempt to offset those costs for lower income people with carbon trading revenues or whatever, energy prices will go up.  In general, I think this is wise – however, it will have an effect on the larger economy.  Yes, yes there are dozens of studies that presume that shifting to renewables will grow the economy.  Each of those studies assumes growth – assumes we’re going to be getting richer, not poorer as it happens.  None of those suggest that renewable energies can fix our economic crisis.  And, quite bluntly, a lot of those used energy reduction targets that were far lower than anything we have to actually deal with – the Yale study that showed growth across the board topped out emissions reductions at 40%. 

Unfortunately more likely is that we don’t do enough soon enough – the Waxman-Markey bill making its way through Congress right now is a good example – they keep trimming emissions targets.  Even though 80% by 2050 will, we know, absolutely not mitigate climate change, we’re now down to about 45% by 2050, as Charles Komanoff demonstrates.  In which case, we’ll probably see a drag on revenues and unmitigated climate change.  Goody.

Sir Nicholas Stern’s famed Stern report estimated that unchecked, climate change could cost every single world economy 20% of its GDP – that is, we’d be using one fifth of our GDP just to fix the damage climate change was causing (this was a world average – those people whose countries won’t be there anymore probably find it hard to create a GDP at all).  The statistics are probably higher for the US, which as Joseph Romm notes, has more wealth on its coastlines than almost any other nation.

In four years, two American cities have effectively been destroyed – New Orleans and Galveston.  What about the next one?  What happens when it is Miami or some other major city?  Besides the enormous human and communal costs, where will the money come from to rebuild, to evacuate, to deal with the economic costs?  Anyone want to bet that we won’t see any more major hurricanes?  Add on to that the little costs – the rising food prices from drought and flooding around the world, the costs of health care, of everything from new disease to increased low birth weight babies (yup, even that goes with climate change).  Are we all set to grow our way out of that?

But even in the best scenarios, where we do limit emissions and get back down to 350 ppm, we cannot expect economic growth and radical emissions reduction simultaneously – they are are not compatible.  Let’s say we do finally grasp how immovable this object is – and that we’re about to slam into it.  Actually addressing climate change will require us to reduce total emissions by nearly 100% worldwide.  We know that building out enough renewables just to keep up with basic needs will be a huge challenge, and may not be done fast enough to prevent a major energy bottleneck – moreover, as I keep pointing out, we may not be *able* to do this as fast as we’d like, even if we could build out renewables quickly – that is, since all our renewables are build with fossil fuels at every stage, we may not be able to do a massive buildout without risking crossing our tipping points – that is, we may have to say “ok, for the next decade we’re all going to do with a lot less energy, so that the future has some hope” and build out much more slowly.  And we’re not going to be growing our economy.

Not to mention that fact that in such a case, where we allocate much of our fossil fuel production to a renewable build out, because we’re facing peak oil, we’re going to have to take the energy *from* somewhere – that is, we’re going to have to get our energy by not using it elsewhere – probably in the consumer economy.  I’ve written much more about the fact that doing this would be a lot like WWII – no luxuries, no false usage, state controlled economy – than anyone has liked to admit.

I haven’t even talked about the ways that rock, our financial crisis, hits immovable object – because all of this requires enormous amounts of capital, and secure state economies.  In order for nations to take on the enormous indebtedness required to push through this massive shift in our economy, we would have to have the ability to service that debt (each American now owes an additional 155K, btw), and buyers for that debt.  Where is the money for this build out going to come from?

Rock, hard place and immovable object are going to continue to bang up against one another, and the space we’ve got to move in gets smaller and smaller – as does our hope of finding a way out.  Roughly, our financial crisis makes it harder to finance the renewable energy we so desperately need to address both climate change and peak oil.  Meanwhile, peak oil means that every time we start to climb out of the financial hole, we fall back in – we can’t grow without cheap oil, and we only have cheap oil when the economy is crashing.  And climate change comes ’round and says “oh, and some of what money you do have will be needed to deal with me now – don’t plan on using it for anything affirmative, you’ll want it for the next city, or the next drought, or the next…”  If we do address climate change, we push up energy prices, and create lots of ugly temptation for the government to take the revenues from cap and trade and spend them on debt servicing and bailing out rich people, rather than offsetting costs. High energy prices would be good – except that they come with high taxes, high price volatility for basic needs, high unemployment, high bankruptcy rates and declining credit, not to mention our energy intensive infrastructure.

Round and round and round she goes, and wherever she stops, we crash into something heavy and hard.  My husband once said “isn’t it ironic that we’re facing all these crises simultaneously?”  No, I don’t think it is ironic at all – I think it is inevitable – that is, as long as there was one way out of the hall of mirrors you could put off the crisis for a while, or at least, off thinking about it.  That is, it seemed perfectly feasible to convert, someday, when we got around to it, to renewables as long as we were flush with wealth.  It seemed perfectly possible to deal with the oil crisis as long as we were rich, and it was someday.  It seemed perfectly possible to take on debt and build a credit card economy as long as we had energy to make the economy go.  It seemed perfectly possible to address climate change, as long as we could switch to lower emissions natural gas and dig a little deeper… Again, I am reminded of the conclusions of the 30 year Update of The Limits to Growth – in most scenarios, the crisis point does not come because of one single thing, but because “the system runs out of the ability to cope.”

Our ability to cope has, to put it starkly, run out.  I don’t mean that the end of the world is now here – I mean that we can no longer put off our problems.  And we are stuck where we put ourselves.

Is there an out from this ugly trio?  The only one I can see is this.  If our ambitions became smaller, in proportion to our reality, we might be able to slip out of our trap in the cracks around our triple crisis.  That is, if we acknowledged now that we cannot, as the Rolling Stones put it, get what we want, that we must settle for what we need, and content ourselves with the hope that our actions now can enable a decent future, we might be able to go forward.

The first item on that agenda would be a realistic assessment of what we need to do for climate change.  The odds are this would be painful, and politically unpopular.  And we need to do it anyway – emissions targets must be set lower and sooner, and while we can all hope that economic growth will magically begin, we must begin from the assumption that it will not.  That is, we must cut much of our emissions simply by not making them.  That means a massive shift in our society – ideally with tradable rationing as George Monbiot has proposed, which is the sanest of a lot of mediocre options.  Thus, the poor who already make fewer emissions than the rich, get to trade off their emissions allotment, and get a little richer, if they are willing.  But there must be absolute, strict caps.

The bailing of the rich and its corporations must stop – if we accept that economic growth in any sustained way is manifestly unlikely in the coming years, we can’t keep borrowing.  So what money we spend has to be spent on protecting the people, and reviving the domestic and informal economy – because, after all, if people’s basic needs are met, growth itself isn’t as important – this doesn’t mean that such a contraction will be easy, but it can be far less painful than it will be.  And the political difficulties could be navigated by a leader powerful enough to make the case for self-sacrifice for a larger goal. I don’t claim this is easy – merely necessary.

Finally, we would simply need to use vastly less energy, while gradually allocating as many of our resources as humanly possible to renewables and infrastructure investments, not primarily for the short term, but for the long term.  We must begin from the assumption that all of our densest energy sources are in decline – we face peak oil, coal and natural gas, and that our supplies of all are uncertain – so reducing our reliance on these *and* preserving a supply of these valuable materials for the future is essential.

Most of us reading this blog have thought for a bit about the implications of needing less energy, and they realize that in and of itself, this need not be unmitigated suffering – that is, we are not going back to banging rocks together in caves.  But we must invest our resources in making this possible, both at the personal and at the national, state and regional levels.  And we need to make compelling the vision of the future that we are offering – hope for our children and grandchildren, vs. no hope; a simpler life, harder in some ways, better in others; an honest truth, with some good and some bad. 

All this would entail convincing the American public that at this point, the most important thing we can do is to protect our future.  We have done this in the past – in World War II, that was our narrative.  We asked millions to risk death, to be parted from their families. Hundreds of thousands actually died for this goal.  The story we were told is this – we face a vast and terrible threat, one that risks destroying everything we value, we must fight it with everything in our power- and your sacrifice now buys you a future.  As Franklin Roosevelt said in 1941,

“We are now in this war.  We are all in it all the way.  Every single man, woman and child is a partner in the most tremendous undertaking in American history.  We must share together the bad news and the good news, the defeats and the victories – the changing fortunes of war.”

I do not claim that getting the American or the world’s people to share in this project would be easy. I do claim that it is possible - every time I mention this many observe that we are now lazier, softer, more selfish than our grandparents ever were.  And that may be true.  But more than our grandparents, even, I think we long for meaning and purpose, for a vision of the future,  even if it is difficult.  Nor are we as soft as we like to say – Americans are very much invested in their own image of themselves as tough, as willing, as courageous - so invested that I have little doubt that they will rise to the occasion. I have no doubt this would be very hard. I also have no doubt it is possible.

That said, I don’t find it probable, much as I would like to, that our present leadership will lead us there.   And there is a real chance that even if we made the shift, we might fail to mitigate climate change, we might fail to create a decent future – we’re pretty close to the edge here.  But then again, we might have failed in World War II as well – at the start, it seemed very unlikely that Britain would not fall to the Germans at the very least.  The fact that you might fail might not be as important as we think it is.  In the end, if we face up to our realities, and acknowledge them, the very best any of us can do is everything we can.

Our present position, is, to put it mildly, unenviable.  We are trapped, proverbially, between rock and hard place, with immovable object pressing down on top.  We have squandered our chance to find the easy ways out, and our best options aren’t that appealing to most of us. 

The only possible case for them is that they are real.  That is, that outside the world of fantasy, outside those invested in raising consumer confidence or denying our ecological predicament for their own purposes, we have the choices we have.  Nobody chose this.  Nobody wanted it, and yet, it happened, and we allowed it. And now, we go from where we are.  Or we do not, and we never go anywhere at all worth going – we spend the rest of our lives in a trap, with the walls slowly moving together. 

Sharon 

• climate , economy , global warming , peak oil
• Comments(37)