While tending my baby plants today (photos just posted here:http://www.flickr.com/photos/inkandpen/) it occured to me that there should be about three weeks in the middle of the summer where, if we go vegan, we should be able to pretty much live off the garden. It won't save the world, but it does make me happy.
On the terrifying hand, Dave is fond of pointing out what is (to him) the scariest part. It isn't just that we run our cars on oil, or that we heat our homes with it, or that we use it to generate electricity. Oil is also the primary building block for ALL synthetic fertilizers, pesticides, pharmaceuticals, and other chemicals. We build them out of oil. This is another reason that learning how to feed the population organically is important-- no oil, no chemical fertilizers, no conventional food. Or big pharma drugs (you'll help us replace those, right?)
Ugh. I'm going to go talk to my baby tomato plants.
it is a bit terrifying. seems like people agree that in perspective with the rest of the world, the US won't be hit that hard. (Although we're so wimpy that we'll probably complain more than any other country).
Anyway, mass starvation is one of the commonly foreseen outcomes of global warming and/or global dimming. One of the most populous areas in the world -- southern Asia and India -- depends on seasonal monsoons which are a result of temperature variations over Africa and the Indian Ocean, and a fair number of models predict drastic changes to the weather patterns that create those monsoons. In the 80s and 90s, millions of people died of starvation in Africa due to a similar change that lead to a ~20 year drought. That was in a population that was originally only a few million. The population of India and southern Asia is on the order of billions. We've already seen how hard it is for America to stand in and help by sending food to starving countries. Imagine how much more difficult it will be if we don't have enough food
( ... )
Ironic that petrol products offer some of the highest energy densities for storage. But, I suppose the fact that you can use it to move quite a lot of energy over long distances with very little loss is why we use it, eh? :)
Interesting fact... There is global warming occuring on mars and pluto too. This suggests that the a change in the brightness of the sun could be contributing to global warming, not a manmade cause. This is estimated to be responsible for something one 10 or 20% of global warming though, so oh well for the it's-not-our-fault idea. Laura
Funny you should post about these topics--there's a program airing tonight on OPB (Oregon NPR affiliate) about the amazingly high amounts of energy consumption going on in this country to shovel things around and around and around while ignoring that which can be obtained (at a much lower energy cost) locally. From what I can tell, the underlying theme of the program is to choose the local life instead of burdening the rest of the world so that we can buy beans from Chile
( ... )
really, it makes sense in so many ways to operate things on a local scale. except that if you're cynical like I am, part of you says, the disadvantage of localization is that it's much more difficult to control, especially if you're a entrepreneur who wants to make a lot of money, or if you're a government who wants people to be disinclined to form a stronger attachement to their local community than to your central government.
But it is a bit wierd to realize just how interconnected the problems of modern suburban life are to oil. We don't take Uniform Resource Access for granted and consume the world's highest energy per capita... We take URA for granted because we consume the world's highest energy per capita, and vice versa.
Well yes, there is the argument of economies of scale that suggests large organizations. However, those economies typically do not scale forever--the cost of the infrastructure to maintain that scale checks that scaling, and what we're looking at is an increase in infrastructure costs (i.e. stagflation). There's also the argument that localized organizations are better suited to respond to change, as it should be easier for a small entity to break camp in one area and ramp up in others. That said, many of the large entities seem to weather those bumps with large amounts of cash.
I think what I'm getting at is that the reasons for big entities to exist don't change; it's merely thta the point at which getting bigger makes no sense is moving.
I'd argue that peoples' allegiances start with those who are physically nearby (neigborhoods) and spread outwards towards more abstract collections (city, state, federal). People don't connect with their neighbors, nor do they connect with the federal government in DC.
(I think I could also make the argument that the current Executive doesn't seem to want to be connected to the rest of the government, but that's a different issue.)
Comments 8
On the terrifying hand, Dave is fond of pointing out what is (to him) the scariest part. It isn't just that we run our cars on oil, or that we heat our homes with it, or that we use it to generate electricity. Oil is also the primary building block for ALL synthetic fertilizers, pesticides, pharmaceuticals, and other chemicals. We build them out of oil. This is another reason that learning how to feed the population organically is important-- no oil, no chemical fertilizers, no conventional food. Or big pharma drugs (you'll help us replace those, right?)
Ugh. I'm going to go talk to my baby tomato plants.
Reply
Anyway, mass starvation is one of the commonly foreseen outcomes of global warming and/or global dimming. One of the most populous areas in the world -- southern Asia and India -- depends on seasonal monsoons which are a result of temperature variations over Africa and the Indian Ocean, and a fair number of models predict drastic changes to the weather patterns that create those monsoons. In the 80s and 90s, millions of people died of starvation in Africa due to a similar change that lead to a ~20 year drought. That was in a population that was originally only a few million. The population of India and southern Asia is on the order of billions. We've already seen how hard it is for America to stand in and help by sending food to starving countries. Imagine how much more difficult it will be if we don't have enough food ( ... )
Reply
Reply
There is global warming occuring on mars and pluto too. This suggests that the a change in the brightness of the sun could be contributing to global warming, not a manmade cause. This is estimated to be responsible for something one 10 or 20% of global warming though, so oh well for the it's-not-our-fault idea.
Laura
Reply
Reply
But it is a bit wierd to realize just how interconnected the problems of modern suburban life are to oil. We don't take Uniform Resource Access for granted and consume the world's highest energy per capita... We take URA for granted because we consume the world's highest energy per capita, and vice versa.
Reply
I think what I'm getting at is that the reasons for big entities to exist don't change; it's merely thta the point at which getting bigger makes no sense is moving.
Reply
(I think I could also make the argument that the current Executive doesn't seem to want to be connected to the rest of the government, but that's a different issue.)
Reply
Leave a comment