Subject: Re: [permaculture] Toby- Re. "Apocalypse Not" - How do you see it presently?
Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2007 08:18:55 -0800
##we're all so impatient for this collapse to get on with itself, aren't we?
[warning... soapbox hereafter]
I grew up in counter-culture living the 'promise of collapse and
revolution', and I suspect my daughter will move past that. Don't
forget tar sands and oil shale, which may allow another generation of
procrastination with a staggering cost in carbon emissions. We are a
horrifically inventive species when it comes to our wants. I suspect if
times get rough we will rediscover less savory political systems that
satisfy peoples hunger for security while continuing to sacrifice
health. If we fail to INITIATE the shift in culture, and in effect
bringing the rest of our damned society with us, I suspect we will
stagger onward for quite some time, gradually forgetting what we have
lost. No exciting 'collapse' to goad us awake, just a gentle mindless
decent into increasingly more cockroach-like behavior. Look at the
living conditions in early industrial times... we have a long way to go
down before 'we' let things get 'out of control'. And if we allow this
hungry ghost to live on, don't think it will leave us alone to develop
our tribal utopia. Pace yourself, broaden your base, this is a long
term all or nothing game, and we will have to DESIGN the cultural shift
carefully based on systematic and honest cultural assessments of the
terrain and the countervailing forces, and not build castles of sand on
a foundation subcultural apocalypse theory (like our apocalyptic
Christian brethren.)
-Paul Cereghino
----------------
another global warming update...
"By burning fossil fuel and clearing forests human beings have
significantly altered the global carbon cycle," says Chris Field of the
Carnegie Institution'
s Department of Global Ecology, one of the report's lead authors. A
result has been the buildup of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, but so
far this has been partially offset by carbon uptake by the oceans and by
plants and soils on land. "In effect, we have been getting a huge
subsidy from these unmanaged parts of the carbon cycle," notes Field.
Overall, this subsidy has sequestered, or hidden from the atmosphere,
approximately 200 billion tons of carbon. In North America much of it
has come from the regrowth of forests on former farmland and the uptake
of carbon by agricultural soils. But these carbon sinks may be reaching
their limit as forests mature and climate conditions change. And some
may literally go up in smoke if wildfires become more frequent, as some
climate simulations predict. Planting forests and adopting
carbon-conserving practices such as no-till agriculture may increase
carbon sinks somewhat, but this would not come close to compensating for
carbon emissions, which continue to accelerate. "There are a lot of good
reasons for replenishing our forests and encouraging better agricultural
practices," says Ken Caldeira, another author of the report, also at
Carnegie's Department of Global Ecology. "But if we want to mitigate our
impact on the carbon cycle, there's no escaping the fact that we need to
drastically reduce carbon dioxide emissions."
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/11/071114111141.htm
<http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/11/071114111141.htm>