|
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!
----- 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
|
