Re: [GBlist] Better than OT politics

["michael" <compostnow@telus.net>]

Now we are getting somewhere!
We are engaged in a dialectic, which allows an educated and curious group of
evolving beings, to "stray off topic" and stir the pot,
To me, straying off the topic allows one to think outside of their box/next
they have comfortably created to allow themselves to move around in the
world understandably with confidence,
However this also leads to complacency and lack of growth (stagancy, even
dormancy, and atrophy).
When we stary off topic we sometimes waste time but other times connect
meaningful truths outside of our web of belief AND THEN, AND ONLY THEN, when
we get back to the nuts and bolts of green building, we a surprised to see
that we have evolved a bit or a lot and are thinking more progressively,
good job gang, hang in there with your impatience and use that delete key if
you are short circuiting :)

----- Original Message -----
From: "Ralph Bicknese" <ralph.bicknese@christnerinc.com>
To: "Mark R. Johnson" <mrj53@mindspring.com>; <greenbuilding@crest.org>
Sent: Monday, January 28, 2002 5:48 PM
Subject: RE: [GBlist] Better than OT politics


> 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
> ______________________________________________________________________
>


______________________________________________________________________
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
______________________________________________________________________