We Want Solutions! (Kunstler)

[phantom power]

(...) this longing for "solutions," strikes me as a free-floating wish for magical rescue remedies, for techno-fixes that will allow us to make a hassle-free switch from fossil hydrocarbon power to something less likely to destroy the Earth's ecosystems (and human civilization with it). And I think such a wish is, in itself, at the root of our problem -- certainly at the bottom of our incapacity to think clearly about these things.

(...)

My position on this can be easily misunderstood. I don't want civilization to collapse (I like Mozart and access to root canal). I don't want Homo sapiens to go extinct, or the planet to parboil. I certainly don't believe in doing nothing in the face of this emergency. But I also don't believe we are going to make any hassle-free switch in the way we run things -- or that we should want to. Would the USA be a better place if we could run Wal-Mart and Las Vegas on wind power? I don't think so. Would the public benefit from another hundred years of suburban living -- and an economy based largely on creating ever more of it? All the Prozac in the universe would not avail to offset the diminishing returns of that bullshit.

In my travels, I have noticed a disturbing theme among the educated minority of eco-advocates: they are every bit as dedicated to the status quo (in their own way) as the NASCAR morons and shopping mall developers. The eco-advocates want cars, too, and all the prerogatives (like free parking and country living) that go with them, just like the WalMart shoppers. If this were not so, then why do the eco-advocates cream in their jeans whenever somebody presents a snazzy new vehicle that runs on a fuel other than gasoline? Indeed, why are some of the eco-friendly pouring all their efforts into the invention of such things instead of into walkable communities and the reform of our stupid land-use laws?

(...)

But I don't want to be doubly or triply misunderstood as appearing to twang on the kind people who invited me there, or to evade the obvious fact that I went (by airplane and shuttle van). I thought it was worth going to carry this one little message: let's stop talking about making better cars and start talking about occupying the landscape differently -- which we're going to have to do anyway.

http://jameshowardkunstler.typepad.com/clusterfuck_nation/2007/05/we_want_solutio.html

[jwirr]

1. I like Kuntsler. When I gave my grandson his Long Emergency to

read he said, "Grandma, he is talking about the end of the world in my lifetime." I think a lot of people see it this way because they do not know what steps to take in their own lives. What we need is leadership (not necessarily government) to give us ideas for this change. I am getting the three generations of my family to learn simple activities such as gardening and canning. We are going to join the churches quilting group to learn how to quilt. My son-in-law wants to raise chickens and guinea hens for eggs, meat and the guineas will eat those damn ticks which are thick as fleas this year. While we are still part of the rat race - jobs that we have to drive to - we are trying to get those jobs closer to home. We could use a leader to give us direction. The changes are very scary and many of my family was not as lucky as I was to be born into an era when my family raised most of what they needed on their own 40 acre farms.

[phantom power]

2. At his best, he is insightful and empathetic.

He's got an aesthetic-snob streak in him that I find less than endearing. But people are complicated.

I also quibble about his use of the word "hassle." Changing a flat tire is a hassle. Living through peak-fossil and climate change is going to be traumatic. Not everybody is going to survive.

[GliderGuider]

3. Kunstler hits the nail squarely on the nose, again.

As far as he goes, anyway. Unfortunately he fails (refuses? declines?) yet again to draw the obvious conclusion from his insightful premise.

There are two keys to solving a problem:

1. Your understanding of the problem must be correct.
2. A solution must exist.

Yearning for solutions when neither of these conditions is met is doomed to failure and will inevitably do unexpected damage.

Ethanol fuel has become a canonical example of this failure. The problem that needs solving isn't the carbon intensity of our automotive fuel. It's that we have created a civilization that depends completely on combustion-driven vehicular transport for physical and spiritual survival. It's that the use of combustion engines has allowed our population to grow past the ability of the planet to support us - probably by a factor of 5. Its that the use of combustion engines has enabled us to decimate the physical and biological resources of our planet, damaging - perhaps fatally - its ability to support any species including our own.

If you accept this statement of the problem, it's instantly, blindingly obvious that the problem does not have a solution, at least within the context of human civilization as we know it, and certainly not within the realm of vehicle fuel formulae. Reducing the carbon intensity of the fuel will do absolutely nothing to address the true problem: a growing population living vastly beyond its means by drawing down finite, one-time resource gifts.

The exact same issue crops up when you consider any of the other problems we are faced with. The destruction of the oceans by over-fishing and acidification will not be solved by better fishing laws and carbon emissions trading. The destruction of topsoil fertility will not be solved by better regulation of fertilizers and pesticides, or even by a wholesale switch to organic farming practices. Fresh water depletion will not be solved by drilling ever more, ever deeper wells or drafting bilateral water sharing agreements with your neighbours. The problem of oil depletion will not be solved with biofuels, wind power or solar panels.

The reason none of these solutions will work is because the real problem has not been identified. As a result the solution domains are too narrow, remaining isolated to individual aspects of the true problem, and never addressing the real issue. An appropriate metaphor is a twist on the story of the blind men and the elephant. One thinks the problem is that there is a snake in the room, so he tries to charm it with a flute. One thinks the problem is that there is a tree growing in the middle of the room, so he tries to cut it down with a saw. Another thinks the problem is that someone has built a wall across the middle of the room, so he attempts to knock it down with a sledgehammer. Another thinks the problem is that someone in the room is pointing a spear at him, so he holds up a shield to deflect it. The last one thinks the problem is just a fan, so is really no problem at all.

None of them recognize that the real problem is that there is a fucking elephant in the room.

Or, in our case 6.5 billion of the damn things. And for that problem, my friends, there is no solution at all. Not one that Kunstler's eco-trekkers or NASCAR crazies or even you would call a solution, anyway.

[kestrel91316]

4. We, the people, have the power to solve a large portion of the energy

problem ourselves. It's called CONSERVATION. We better start making voluntary changes in our lifestyles and energy use choices, because nobody ELSE is going to step up to the plate and do it for us.

[GliderGuider]

5. 25% of North America cuts their overall energy use by 25%

That's a damn ambitious goal. That will save 6% of North America's energy budget, or 1.6% of the world's energy use. too bad China is guaranteed to soak up that amount every year.

Conservation will help dramatically at the individual level. It will make your life simpler, cheaper and more enjoyable (provided your value system changes commensurately). I have my doubts that it's going to solve anything, though.

[kestrel91316]

6. 100% of North America needs to cut their energy use by 30-50%.

I happen to think it can be done, but people don't want to make personal sacrifices for the greater good, so it won't happen.

It's all about memememememememememememe. And mineminemineminemineminemine.

"The greater good" is an archaic concept. Probably communist.

[GliderGuider]

7. Our genetics won't permit this.

It's not a sign of some generalized moral failure. We simply cannot do it. Humans are not genetically wired to accept the idea of voluntary impoverishment in the face of plenty, except for some individuals that have very strong personal motivation. Asking for that to happen is like expecting water to run uphill. Don't blame the water when it doesn't happen.

[Dogmudgeon]

9. Our morals will be greatly improved by death

It is with the greatest sadness that I note that the Powerful and the Masses alike have never responded to mass emergencies in any way other than self-destructively.

But screw the dithyrambling syntax. We won't come to our senses until there is misery and dying. By then, it will be too late to save most of those who are already damned.

--p!

[kestrel91316]

10. I am one of the ones with motivation, but I haven't passed my genes on....

fortunately my sister and BIL are likeminded, and they HAVE. And my niece and nephew are also motivated. My niece doesn't want to ever live where she HAS to own a car to get around - CITY GIRL, lol.

[GliderGuider]

12. Interesting how that works, isn't it?

I haven't passed mine on either.

There's a really crappy movie called "Idiocracy" that has a brilliant opening. It shows two newly married couples. One is upper middle class, well educated, aware and worldly with a taste for caviar and fine wine. The other couple are trailer trash, grade 2 dropouts with missing teeth and a taste for Moon Pies and Dr. Pepper. They show the rich couple agonizing over when the right time might be to have a child , and deciding to wait till they graduate. Couple number two has twins instantly. The smart couple puts off kids to work on their careers while the idiots have three more. The smart couple can't have kids just yet because their new promotions mean they have to travel too much. The idiots have another three kids, their twins get married and each of them has a baby... They follow the family tree of the two couples over 40 years. At the end, the tree of the idiots snakes over the entire screen with hundreds of names. The smart couple's tree is still just two dots with a line between them. Eventually this effect depresses the IQ of the entire human race by 30 points.

I think that explains Republicans.

[Nihil]

15. I understand you but disagree

> Humans are not genetically wired to accept the idea of voluntary
> impoverishment in the face of plenty ...

I would say that it is not genetic wiring that is maintaining the
wilful ignorance of the "consumers" in the face of facts showing that
there ISN'T plenty and there will NOT be plenty in the immediate future.
The genetic tendency for survival under such conditions is to store
whatever is available, not consume as much as possible in the shortest
amount of time available.

The latter strategy is unique to humans and will ultimately result in
their well-deserved extinction if the intelligent minority fails to
redirect the greedy polluting actions of the gluttonous elements.

[phantom power]

8. 100% of planet earth needs to cut it's GHG emission by 80-90%.

If you want to cut right to the chase. Global GHG emissions were in equilibrium circa the American civil war.

In theory, that does not imply energy reduction. In practicality, it probably implies demand destruction via massive die-off.

[kestrel91316]

11. I am hoping, out of self-interest, that the die-off will happen at only a

slightly accelerated pace, and that rather than losing our best and brightest to famine, we lose masses of, well, huddled masses. Not something I WANT to see, mind you, but if it has to be, let us lose those who are least able to carry needed skills forward into our uncertain future.

I wouldn't mind an early demise of cell-phone-using SUV drivers and reality-TV-obsessed TV addicts and uber-chic fashionistas and the Lindsey Lohans of the world..........

[Nihil]

14. I think it needs to be faster than that ...

> ... that the die-off will happen at only a slightly accelerated pace,
> and that rather than losing our best and brightest to famine, we lose
> masses of, well, huddled masses. Not something I WANT to see, mind you,
> but if it has to be, let us lose those who are least able to carry needed
> skills forward into our uncertain future.

... as, unfortunately, many of the people in the best position to survive
in the "slow die-off" version are the rich & powerful - who are rarely in
the "best & brightest" category.

Given that neither "fast" nor "slow" would appear to benefit the human
race in these terms, I'd prefer a "fast" event so that the people who
have caused the problem are also amongst the suffering rather than just
living "well" and leaving the problem to their grandchildren.

[depakid]

13. Unfortunately, this can't be done by individuals

especially in areas like So Cal.

There's no way to cut overall energy consumption in areas where there's so much suburban sprawl and "service based" economies. Globalization and suburbia are basically great big entropy engines... trucking in most of the supplies amenities that run the system from afar.

Relocalizing and recreating production and commerce networks on smaller scales will be required in order to achieve any degree of sustainability in the coming decade(s) -but that's not going to happen easily, because among other things, Americans are so heavily invested- both in terms of capital and psychology, in the current scheme of things.

In this respect, Kunstler may well prove prophetic- the slums of the future may well be the suburbs and exurbs of today.