Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

livingontheland - Re: [Livingontheland] Ultimate season extension

livingontheland@lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Healthy soil and sustainable growing

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "E. E. Mitchamore Jr" <emitch@att.net>
  • To: <livingontheland@lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [Livingontheland] Ultimate season extension
  • Date: Sat, 2 Dec 2006 06:41:26 -0600

She's disagreeing with she sees as a rejection of technology.  But you're both right; you're just looking at it from different perspectives.  From a micro-perspective (an individual, a family, a business, etc.), any technology that improves efficiency and/or reduces the long-term impact on the environment in a cost-effective manner, is unquestionably positive.  From a macro-perspective (a nation, the world), technology cannot solve our problems.
 
However, that is where our innovative minds and disciplines like Permaculture, Holistic Management, and Organic gardening/farming come into play.  They show us ways to move toward sustainability, using appropriate technology to move from being part of the problem to part of the solution.  I particularly appreciate Holistic Management because it requires us to perform comprehensive analyses to make decisions.  With that approach I can justify certain decisions (such as a solar system) on the basis of our long-term impact on the environment, rather than simply on the basis of its cost-effectiveness in our business' annual budget.
 
BTW, some of your statements ("these high dollar gems like batteries and inverters
don't come down"),
contradict previous discussions of Jevons' Paradox.  The idea is that perceived personal benefits lead to increased demand.  Demand leads to increased production, which lowers prices, which increases consumption to the point that the overall effect on society is negative.  The benefit to the individual is still positive.
 
The last section of your original post is absolutely correct and worth repeating: 
 
"Still, there are millions in this country who need to be more self sufficient in food,
 growing more of their own, swapping with neighbors etc. because they can't
 make ends meet. Two or three generations ago people knew how. They don't
 now. But those who do learn again how to live on the land - without
relying on fossil fuel inputs - will be more secure. I promote that. It's an
individual choice."
 
Good Job!
 
E. E. "Mitch" Mitchamore
www.hillcountrynatives.biz
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Saturday, December 02, 2006 12:43 AM
Subject: Re: [Livingontheland] Ultimate season extension


Certainly you're free to disagree. But I can't figure out exactly what it
is you're disagreeing with.

paul tradingpost@lobo.net

*********** REPLY SEPARATOR  ***********

On 12/1/2006 at 8:00 AM charlotte plummer wrote:

>Hi I am sorry but I have to disagree with you.  My Dad put up solar
>panels in the eighties and said he was money well spent.  He even got a
>tax deduction for it.  He a coal stove also installed made in Germany.  He
>has to work a little to keep it going but he says it is worth it.  He 85
>and still going strong.  I also heard somewhere the solar panels or
>materials are coming down in proce.  They will be making cheaper ones
>soon.  Charlotte
>
>TradingPostPaul <tradingpost@riseup.net> wrote: 
>Robert, I thought their season extension was interesting, but to tell the
>truth that solar installation had to be financed by thousands in
charitable
>donations from somewhere. The solar had to cost far more than the
>greenhouses themselves. They're a nonprofit, but from a business
standpoint
>it would be suicide. None of us can repeat their setup and repay the cost
>through our sales. Market farming is a slim profit margin business at best
>today without a huge investment in solar to pay off. Energy costs are
>already putting some farm sectors out of business and it's not just fuel
>but the energy going into building machinery, transporting food, plus the
>fossil fuels that make pesticides, herbicides, and fertilizer. People are
>going to be forced to grow without those energy inputs.
>
>The arguments about technology saving our butts have all been answered.
>Technology can only increase efficiency, not create energy. I favor wind
>power but all the alternatives cost more money than any government can
>afford and far more than the public is willing to sacrifice for. The bad
>news is most of the cost of solar now comes in the equipment you have to
>buy to use it, and these high dollar gems like batteries and inverters
>don't come down. Rising demand is forcing prices up already. Few people
>have any idea how unrealistic it is for solar to save us from rising oil
>prices. Or realize that solar manufacture takes as much energy as building
>a car. As the cost of fossil fuel keeps rising the cost of energy to
>manufacture solar must rise. There are no alternatives that will let our
>civilization keep up our energy standard of living. Hard fact: If anything
>else packed as much punch for the cost, we'd jolly well be using it
already
>instead of oil. So the alternatives will bankrupt us. I've studied this
>from every known angle. All this modern "progress" from the Industrial
>Revolution on was fueled by cheap energy. Mainstream experts of all
stripes
>know this and know cheap energy is over. I'd love to have alternatives
>because there's no light at the end of the tunnel.
>http://www.guardian.co.uk/life/feature/story/0,13026,1464050,00.html
>http://www.economist.com/opinion/displayStory.cfm?story_id=2155717
>
>Sorry but I have to disagree with some of those points you made -
>historians know it was not the Bomb that ended WW II, and we do not have
>the capability or money to switch it all to solar, and Japan has been in
>economic trouble for years and is hopelessly tied to our own economic
>decline - nor would Japan save our butts if they could.
>
>I wish all of that was a bad dream. Unfortunately most people won't or
>can't face facts because of what they'd have to do. Still, there are
>millions in this country who need to be more self sufficient in food,
>growing more of their own, swapping with neighbors etc. because they can't
>make ends meet. Two or three generations ago people knew how. They don't
>now. But those who do learn again how to live on the land - without
relying
>on fossil fuel inputs - will be more secure. I promote that. It's an
>individual choice.



_______________________________________________
Livingontheland mailing list
Livingontheland@lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/livingontheland



Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page