RE: [GBlist] Better than OT politics

["Ralph Bicknese" <ralph.bicknese@christnerinc.com>]

Mark:

You are certainly entitled to your view that we do not have a resource
shortage problem, or a pollution problem, or an environmental health
problem, or a human health problem with major increases in respiratory
diseases and skin cancer problems, etc.  Some other people share that view.
I will not go against your wishes and spend much effort here debating it,
just a little. Since you borrowed some of my time with your post I beg your
pardon to bend your ear a bit.

You mentioned, "A very influential book I read about 25 years ago was titled
"THE CHICKEN LITTLE SYNDROME".  An influential book I read at about 22 years
ago is titled "ENERGY FUTURE".  So far most of what it has suggested would
happen regarding oil has happened (including US involvement in war in the
Middle East).  I have also seen an enormous amount of environmental
destruction in the last 25 years and I have to say that I do not feel the
public has been alarmed enough in light of the extreme destruction taking
place, despite the significant positive improvements that have been made in
many areas.

I disagree with your assertion that we have not seen oil resources deplete
as suggested 25 years ago they would.  We have absolutely seen known oil
resources drop alarmingly and we have seen enormous international tension
because of it. Yes we are finding more oil (as predicted) but we have seen
the cost to produce each barrel of oil increase dramatically as each barrel
becomes more and more difficult to extract (as predicted).  Rather than
drilling a few hundred feet to get oil we now have to drill thousands of
feet.  Rather than drilling in open prairie within easy reach of our major
cities we are drilling far out into the ocean and are tempted to drill in
our natural wilderness areas such as the Arctic Natural Wilderness Area.
And/or we are reliant on the whim of other countries for oil who one day are
our friend and the next day not (or vice versa). And what then? We go to war
and kill and be killed to have oil.  And for better or worse when we do that
we anger more people who would just as soon kill you and your family, or
your neighbors, or whoever just to make a point. We are drinking the oil up
and we do not have the ingredients to make more. I pity the soles who do not
prepare for that and for those who will be caught in the crossfire. Shell
Oil and other major oil companies are beginning to initiate their exit
strategies away from oil and to transition to other energy sources.

I agree with the benefits you mentioned a 10% improvement in efficiencies
could have. They are indeed benefits.  But 10% is not nearly enough
especially since the population is expected to increase 50% in the next 50
years (6 billion to 9 billion).  Rather than arguing about what the
hypothetical "enough" is, lets accept that all major indicators are that
virtually every living system on earth is in decline. When natural systems
are in decline it is only a matter of time before that decline begins to
overtake the earth's ability to heal, unless the rate of decline is, not
just slowed, but stopped and reversed.

I stipulate that we have crossed that threshold and we must reverse the
decline we have caused.  Hypothetically, it does not matter all that much if
we crossed it 50 years ago, or today, or 50 years hence but it is easy to
accept it either has been or will be reached at some point.  The rate of
consumption has accelerated so fast that we have not figured out how to deal
with it.  And to us promoting sustainability, the signs are now inevitable.
25 years ago things looked pretty bad.  Well, today with 6 billion people
clamoring for the earth's limited resources, and all the changes that have
occurred in the last 25 years, things are worse now than they were then.
What will the pressures be when, as predicted, the earth reaches a
population of 9 billion in the next mere 50 years? I do not know, but I do
know that without significant effort now we will have many more difficulties
than we do now.  Modern human beings have only existed for about 50,000
years.  For comparison, Neanderthals before us existed for about 2 million
years.  In a short 100 years human beings have done more environmental
destruction than all humanity has done (including the Neanderthals and
Cro-Magnons) in all the eons before. It is high time we begin to do
something other than make a token gesture, about it.  The threat of us
loosing is too great a risk to deny and the rewards of success too great to
ignore.

Despite the awful situation we find ourselves in there is real hope. When we
look at the technological advances accomplished in the last 100 years from
1900-2000 (or say just from the invention of the automobile, to airplanes,
to walking on the moon in a mere 65 years or so, and that finished over 35
years ago) it is easy to see we can accomplish amazing things that couldn't
even be imagined 100 years before.  Unfortunately our environmental advances
and especially advances in social equity have not kept pace. But, there is
hope because people are now working toward a better way. And they have as
goals practicing environmental, economic, and social responsibility (rather
than economic, dominance over nature and dominance over other people).  Is
this a tall order?  Perhaps it is, but many others beside myself believe it
is achievable and happening.  I do not believe it has been attempted on a
global scale before. Sustainability will have to be accomplished on a global
scale to achieve global success. The place to start is right here and right
now. This is an ideal place to talk about it, both the philosophy and the
how-to.

Other people enrich us.  Nature enriches us. When we diminish either we
diminish ourselves. Lets work to be enriched. Enrichment begins with a state
of mind and continues with action.

(That book you mentioned about design in a hot climate, it is out there
waiting for you. I'm sure you will find your answers).

Cheers,
Ralph Bicknese

-----Original Message-----
From: Mark R. Johnson [mailto:mrj53@mindspring.com]
Sent: Monday, January 28, 2002 5:11 PM
To: greenbuilding@crest.org
Subject: [GBlist] Better than OT politics

I am completely a newcomer to reading this list. I came to it because I
wanted to learn about BUILDING, using the kind of methods which are
highly economical. You can call them Green if you want, most people do.
I would be more comfortable with the term "Low-Impact", if other people
are willing to use that.

Why? Because I am a conservative person, past the approximately college
age when those "The World Will End" litanies are believable. I used to
think there was some possible truth to that, now I regard it as a
gigantic scam which some people use to base a career of fear-mongering
on.

Do I think the world will exhaust its oil? No I don't, this lament has
been made many years running and the world has always changed to
disprove each earlier forecast of doom. Do I want to therefore drive an
8-mpg, 7000-lb vehicle myself? Hell no!

Do I think we are morally wrong by using more energy than Europeans,
than Africans, than Chinese, than the world average? In my opinion not
as long as we pay for it using open market, consenting adult
transactions. Do I therefore want to live in a house which costs $3000
to heat and cool each year? Hell no!

But I would point out that improving the gas mileage of all Suburbans by
a couple miles per gallon, would do more good than the Toyota-hybrid
owners have done so far. Improving the energy efficiency of mainstream
homes by 10% is quite achievable, and that would do more good than the
small population of really "green" believers do with their own lives.
Those are essentially conservative actions, not revolutionary but
evolutionary. But after making those modest improvements and helping the
world, we can discuss how valuable it is to go another step -- if we
keep this up for an extended period, a lot of good can be done for the
world.

So we can conceivably agree on *actions* and *values* to a very
meaningful extent, without requiring we synchronize our ideologies. That
is what I would prefer to do. To me, all this off-topic jabbering about
what's wrong with the world (as opposed to more light-hearted or
humorous griping) is just a philosophy that I have considered and
rejected, and this forum does not seem like a very good place to talk it
all over again. Surely there is another forum somewhere about the
"Green" issues where you can discuss that more directly.

Regards -- Mark Johnson

P.S. A very influential book I read about 25 years ago was titled "THE
CHICKEN LITTLE SYNDROME". You can probably guess what it was about.
Right now I am slogging through "THE SKEPTICAL ENVIRONMENTALIST" and
trying to decide how valid are the vehement criticisms printed in the
January Scientific American. But what I would really treasure would be a
book on how to build a super energy-efficient home in the hot and humid
South part of the country.

______________________________________________________________________
This greenbuilding dialogue is sponsored by REPP/CREST, creator of
Solstice http://www.crest.org, and BuildingGreen, Inc., publisher of
Environmental Building News and GreenSpec http://www.BuildingGreen.com
______________________________________________________________________


______________________________________________________________________
This greenbuilding dialogue is sponsored by REPP/CREST, creator of
Solstice http://www.crest.org, and BuildingGreen, Inc., publisher of
Environmental Building News and GreenSpec http://www.BuildingGreen.com
______________________________________________________________________