Action V Contingency

[matthewtrigg]

Action V Contingency

During a discussion on climate change a contrast in approaches to sustainability became apparent to me.

Particularly, the distinction between action taken now to help society evolve (ie; to avert climate change), compared on working on contingency plans for when things finally go bad (ie; social collapse and the period there-after).

I am curious to find out the differing opinions on such approaches; what each perspective means for our sub-conscious beliefs, for the eventual conclusion to the current debate on climate change; and for our ability to become sustainable in general.

[90% by 2030]

Matthew,

Its got be prevention, rather than planning for the aftermath. After it happens, which it will to a greater extent than now, there will be plenty action taken - because it will be blindingly obvious that something is wrong i.e. "necessity is the mother of invention." However, for now, put 100% of efforts into prevention.

[Bowman]

From what I have read (and experienced) climate change is upon us, and unavoidable. Even if CO2 emissions were to end tomorrow existing levels and positive feedback from methane and methane hydrates, reducing ice caps etc, would still result in significant climate change. Obviously we should do everything we can to prevent further emissions, but globally emissions are increasing every year. It seems rather naive to be shutting the door after the horse has bolted.

I think that focusing so heavily on CO2 emissions is something of a red herring because it doesn't address the root cause of climate change, i.e. human activity, or more specifically the burning of fossil fuels by developed and developing societies.

My view is that we, as a global society, need to address our and our children's future at its most fundamental level. If one thinks in terms of opposites, we must reduce and eventually stop all activity that is unsustainable, whether this be cultural, economic or environmental. The implication is that we must start working towards a sustainable future.

The most important shift we need to instigate is away from consumerism and individual rights and freedoms while society and governments bear the burden of responsibility and authority, towards individual responsibility for the greater good of society.

With peak oil approaching and climate change accelerating we need to use the next few decades wisely.

[ancaBle]

I have to come onto forums like this to remind myself that other ppl do care about the environment and are trying to work with nature instead of against. For too many ppl, governements and local councils included, working with nature towards sustainability is too expensive or time consuming. Our society is too lazy to take positive action - instead they will blame others. In one of our neighbouring towns the council have tried to restict refuse collections and have spent alot of money on curb side collections for paper, glass, plastics, garden waste - including uncooked food, cardboard, and run a free of charge collection for larger items i.e refirgerators. I was most impressed. Until a friend of mine found rats in her garden because a neighbour who refuses to recycle has started burying her waste in the garden. So wonderful council who are really making an effort but flippin absent minded fools living there.

So until ppl like this are educated or put in landfills themselves I think we need to look at contingencies as much as the few realistic ones of us taking action.

[daybrown]

<So until ppl like this are educated or put in landfills themselves I think we need to look at contingencies as much as the few realistic ones of us taking action>
Agreed. There are many reasons, like dietary deficit and contamination during development that has produced a mass population that is, as you imply, so lazy, stupid, and greedy. But we are where we are, and its time to think about voting with your feet to an area or community where the people are more rational.

Diamond, in "Collapse" notes the criteria for those areas which recover quckest after the kind of economic crisis we worry about. A few points come to mind. A homogeneous, but low population density & forest. Areas that have minorities will have demagogues scapegoating; those that dont have people focused on solving problems. There needs to be enough land in a variety of crops to provide proper nutrition, and there needs to be enough forest to provide building materials and wood heat.

The Rockies, Appalachians, and Ozarks come to mind. But the nearness of huge metro popultions in the east is worrisome, and the risk of forest fires in the West is also. There are brushfires in the Ozarks, many set by the forest service, but they dont reach the hardwood canopy. Still, even if there is total economic collapse, global warming will go on, and you have to consider what that will do to whatever area you consider moving to.

it has resulted in a new fungus from Australia appearing on Victoria island. The spores when inhaled are quite serious, having killed a few people and many dogs that like to sniff things in the woods. So there is stuff like this that just comes outta nowhere.

http://www.dc-pc.org/farmath/farmath.html is a scan from an 1885 8th grade math book which provides clues on what agricultural prooduciton would be like without diesel engines and petrochemicals. Its also instructive to consider the mental ability expected back then of kids who were raised on family farms on what we now call 'organic' food.... compared to what we can expect of 8th graders raised on sugar cereals, junkfood, and sodapop.