Damned if We Do, Damned if We Don't

As it turns out, a robust economy and a healthy environment are incompatible. If we rev up the economy, the environment suffers. If we protect the environment, the economy tanks. On the face of it, there’s no way to win; we’re literally damned if we do and damned if we don’t. Double damned, actually, because in effect we can’t have either one. The pundits won’t say it, the media won’t air it or print it, the politicians won’t think it and business leaders all deny it, but the status quo has lose/lose written all over it.

There are only two ways out of this dilemma; one you won’t like, and the other you’ll like even less. The first option is to slow the economy gradually but quickly by various means to avoid the harshest impacts to people, and then replace it with an entirely new, sustainable system that protects the environment and excludes no one. The second option is to crash the economy dead in its tracks, cull the human herd by 75% or more, and then reset the board for a new game (presumably of Monopoly). A third option (an ode to the status quo but no way out) is to stay mired in our dilemma, resist all temptations to act in our own best interests, ignore the obvious, deny an undeniable reality and essentially let nature fix the problem for us.

Of several strategies capable of slowing the economy, austerity seems like the best choice. Austerity, as proven on numerous occasions, can effectively slow an economy―or bring it to a complete standstill―in a relative short time. Another result of austerity―intended or not―is that it increasingly puts the superfluous population at greater risk by denying people trapped in this demographic access to the things they need to survive; people who lack the means to survive usually don't. In addition to cooling off the economy, austerity sets the stage for reducing global population numbers to a sustainable level.

There are two kinds of austerity, one soft, the other hard. "Soft" austerity is self-imposed―the kind you accept voluntarily and do willfully―a conscious effort to reduce one's appetite for consumer goods for the greater good of all. Such efforts might include intentionally downsizing one's home, becoming car-free, or reducing one's energy consumption in myriad ways; all are forms of soft austerity. One willingly sacrifices a certain amount of personal comfort, convenience and pleasure for the sake of a smaller carbon footprint.

"Hard" austerity, thrust upon one against one's will by an outside force, chokes off the money supply in the economy. In essence it denies people access to the goods and services they need to survive. It's the kind of austerity that’s pervasive in the world today. Hard austerity is not only a means of population control, it's also a tool that, when skillfully wielded, ensures the wealthy remain at the top of the world pecking order. To put it simply, the wealthy impose austerity on the rest of us (none for them, thank you) by capturing most of the newly created wealth and/or the money increase that accompanies it.

Unfortunately, austerity imposed by the wealthy is aimed at the wrong end of the economic spectrum. For maximum effect, austerity must also target the rich because it is they who contribute the most to environmental destruction. By focusing austerity only on those already struggling to make ends meet, the wealthy betray their true intention to soften up the superfluous population prior to a cull. It’s capitalism they care about, not people or the environment.

Used wisely and applied fairly, austerity measures can be valuable assets in helping humans avert a global environmental disaster. When used in the way that the wealthy now use it, austerity is only an implement of destruction.

In the first analysis, austerity seems like the easiest, cheapest and surest way of bringing the global economy to an idle in the shortest possible time―short of a sudden crash. In the final analysis, nothing changes; the inescapable truth is that economic contraction is an environmental imperative if we are to avoid a climate catastrophe that inevitably leads to a major extinction event.

Q >>>

Appointment in Samarra

Yesterday, Population Media Center’s daily e-mail contained a link to an excellent .pdf, by Doctor William E. Rees, on issues of sustainability. It boasts lots of fun facts and more than a few interesting parallels that suggest the golden age of unbridled capitalism, unlimited economic growth and mass consumption is about over.

This excerpt―especially the highlighted portions, which are particularly relevant to current economic and environmental conditions―imparts a sense of urgency and fairly demands that people start taking this shit seriously:

 “To stabilize GHGs at even 650 ppmv CO2e, the majority of OECD nations must begin to make draconian emission reductions soon (by 2015).*

650 ppmv CO2e implies a catastrophic four degree C mean global temperature increase.

Unless we can reconcile economic growth with unprecedented rates of decarbonization (in excess of 6% per year), avoiding this increase will require a planned economic recession.”*

Wait! We’re in a recession, aren’t we? Well, okay, then; now it all makes sense.

Still, it seems the prudent thing for us humans is to take immediate steps to ensure that we miss our appointment in Samarra.

*Highlighting/bolding mine.

Q >>>

Environmental Activism

Over the weekend I learned that I can’t be a good environmentalist because I sometimes eat meat. Alrighty, then, here’s what I’m going to do: I’m going to stop busting my hump to be a good environmentalist.

First thing on my new agenda is to replace all those CFL and LED light bulbs, purchased at great expense (the LED bulbs cost $30 apiece; I use five of them), with 100w conventional bulbs. I’m no longer satisfied to live in low-light conditions that afford just enough illumination that I’m able to avoid stumbling over the furniture in my humble three-room, 450 sq. ft. apartment. I want light, lots and lots of light.

Now that I’m thinking about my 450 sq.ft. apartment, I’m also thinking that it would probably be a good time to move into something a little larger, say 12,000 sq.ft. and 20-plus rooms. I want room, lots and lots of room. That I’ll be able to sit in the vast expanse of my living room and laugh at all the homeless people straggling by is an added benefit.

When I get moved into my new digs, winters are going to be a lot different than they have been in the recent past, too. No longer will I wear a hoody and thermal socks indoors while I sit huddled under blankets with the temperature somewhat to the south of 70 degrees. 80 degrees is more to my liking, so from now on that’s where I’ll set the thermostat—year ’round. I want comfort, lots and lots of comfort.

Then there’s the matter of the Oklahoma oil and gas leases that have been in my family for at least three generations. Drilling is due to start soon, and expectations are running high. So far, at least three energy companies—Chesapeake, Cobra and Huston—have tendered offers to purchase the leases outright (no sale). My original plan was to donate 90% of my share of the proceeds—if there are any—to worthwhile environmental causes, but of course that plan is now in the crapper. As a failed environmentalist I want toys, lots and lots of toys.

The next thing I’m going to do is sell my mountain bike and buy a car. Make that two cars, both of them gas guzzlers. Maybe a Corvette and a Hummer. There ain’t gonna be no Prius parked in my parking space, I tell ya. I want power, lots and lots of power.

As a former environmentalist, keeping plastic bags out of the environment was important to me. Because I always ride my bike when I go shopping, I always carry my own bags with me; backpack and panniers usually suffice, but I have several reusable cloth bags I can carry with me if I need the extra capacity. Never again. In fact, from now on I’m going to insist that all my groceries be double-bagged in plastic. I want convenience, lots and lots of convenience.

Recycling is another thing I’ve always been conscientious about, but no more. It takes time and energy and a small amount of space dedicated to storing and sorting recyclables until enough has been collected to warrant a trip to the recycling bins. Screw it! From this point forward it’s gonna be “bag it all together” and make one trip to the dumpster. I want to save time, lots and lots of time.

People who criticize my culinary choices—especially those people who still feel the need to drive everywhere they go—need to get a grip. My ancestors evolved as meat eaters, so my need for meat is deeply ingrained. I’ve managed to cut my meat consumption by some 60% or better, but each of two attempts to eliminate all traces of meat from my diet caused a loss of appetite—with predictable outcomes associated with poor nutrition.

In closing, I’ll caution anyone who sees fit to criticize my dietary choices to first lower their standard of living—and their carbon footprint—to a level that matches or betters mine. Until then, just shut up and concentrate on getting your environment-destroying habits under control; worry about mine when you’ve achieved environmental perfection in your own life.

Q >>>

Today Started at Midnight

When I started writing this, the day was 13 hours and 20 minutes old.

In 13 hours and 20 minutes the global population increased by more than 117,000 people. More than 82,000 people became malnourished. 41 species became extinct.

During those 13 hours and 20 minutes more than 41,800,000 tons of CO² were spewed into the atmosphere, the U.S. produced more than 335,000 tons of garbage, 41 tons of oil spilled into the oceans, and some 19,800 hectares of the planet’s forests were razed to the ground. In that 13 hours and 20 minutes more than 46,500,000 barrels of oil were pumped out of the ground.

What time is it?

Doesn’t matter.

It’s later than you think.

Q >>>

Sanity Poised for Comeback? Maybe! Maybe Not!

“A new civilization is emerging in our lives, and blind men everywhere are trying to suppress it. This new civilization brings with it new family styles; changed ways of working, loving, and living; new political conflicts; and beyond all this an altered consciousness ...” —Alvin Toffler

Toffler’s quote is especially prescient in that it describes, with concise precision, exactly why our country’s most cherished institutions have run off the rails and why there seems to be so much difficulty in getting things back on track. The big culprit here is stagnation caused by fear of change, lack of imagination, and a dearth of critical-thinking skills. Oh, yeah, and an overabundance of greed.

Only by thinking “outside the box” (to run an oft-used cliché deeper into the ground) can we begin to effect recoveries of the environment, the economy, and the decaying social infrastructures that most of us depend on. I’d say “thinking outside the buns,” but that would probably offend our leaders—and the wealthy corporatists that pull their strings—because their leadership style depends on keeping their collective head inserted rather far into their collective anal orifice.

The Problem with Problems*

Global warming, environmental destruction, polluted water, depleted fish stocks, an endangered food supply, an energy crisis, a shortage of affordable housing, poverty, education funding shortfalls, rising healthcare costs, declining numbers (relative to the population) of living-wage jobs, war . . .. These are among the most egregious, most vexing, most persistent problems that plague society today. What are we going to do about them?

The conventional mindset is that if society's problem solvers throw enough money at a problem, or do something equally stupid, the problem will just go away. Sorry! Reality doesn't work that way. In reality, one must attack the source of a problem if one has a serious desire to solve the problem.

Everyone has their own ideas about how to remedy society's most pressing problems, but that, in itself, creates another problem. Most remedies postulated by concerned citizens and well meaning (or not) politicians concentrate on treating the symptoms, not the disease. These are nothing more than feel-good solutions that dull the pain of failed policy while ignoring the underlying cause. They give the illusion of making progress, but deliver nothing of substance.

Feel-good solutions are band-aid solutions; they're stopgap measures at best. The sore that is the crux of the problem continues to fester under the band-aid until the band-aid falls off, at which point the original problem becomes a little more difficult to deal with.

Virtually all of the problems mentioned in the first paragraph of this short essay stem from one source—overpopulation. Until all members of society, from the movers and shakers to the moved and shaken, can recognize, understand and accept this simple truth, and will themselves to act in concert to end our collective nightmare, the nightmare will continue, unabated, to its ultimate, frightful, painful conclusion.

We can take decisive, positive steps to limit population growth by placing sanctions and controls on the front end; we can implement harsh, brutal, extreme measures on the back end; or, we can do nothing, thus letting the status quo prevail. We can do it the sane way, we can do it the insane way, or we can let Mother Nature do it her way. That, too, is a choice. The only certainty is that we, as a species, will either live or die by the choice we make.


*This brief article originally appeared in Petey's Pipeline E-zine, Issue #17, October 17, 2005.