Climate Change & Einstein's - You cannot solve a problem ...

[Forge.]

I'm not trying to save the planet, I am making a rational and therefore radical choice based on good factual information (the kind you are apparently not interested in). In doing so, my brain grows, I have more zest for life, more passion, more 'true' caring for others, I am without depression, without fear, I am not concerned with what others may think of me, or how I am perceived, because I am living life fully, consciously aware. (This is, of course, an ongoing non linear process.....I have not, and do not, expect to arrive.)

The reason several billion people will not give up their cars is because you wont, that is all. It's your limited thinking, reflected back to you in the way you see the world. Projections and deflections.

Maybe Andydes put it better than me in that the plan has to cater for large population centres, or the many different ways people live.

Saying billions won't stop because I won't is a bit simplistic though really. People have all kinds of reasons they wouldn't want to give up travel, and you have no idea of my or anyone else's personal circumstances. Giving up my car would inconvenience me a lot and do absolutely nothing to help this problem.

maybe you are feeling positive because of your immediate personal experience and forgetting just how many people on this planet don't live like that.

But I really don't want to give the impression that I'm criticizing what you are doing, far from it.

I'm taking issue with the idea that it's all or nothing and the only solution is to give up cars and air travel altogether, and I want to highlight the importance of planning as though people won't do that, because I really sincerely believe they won't. I don't want to sound like a downer, I just don't believe the majority of humanity will want to go to those lengths.

I think you can reasonably expect people to make many small changes that can make an accumulative big difference overall, but I don't think you can expect the vast majority to give up being able to get around. On the other hand, actually pressuring the companies that make the cars and governments to legislate in order to make sure cars are actually not damaging is action that is realistic and could make a huge difference.

Another thing nobody has mentioned is people with disabilities or health problems. Some people would literally be house bound if they didn't have their own or family members' cars. And not just physical disabilities, but for people with mental health problems getting on a crowded bus or train can be a total nightmare.

Part of progressing as a society is to make life better for all. Personally I think we can make life better for everyone on the planet through resourcefulness and technology, the only obstacle I see against that is excessive greed and not holding corporations accountable for their actions.

As for the books I said I wouldn't read, that was because you framed it that they are arguing that the only solution is to abandon cars altogether and I think that is totally unrealistic and even dangerous because if you are assuming you have solved the problem by getting rid of cars then there is no reason to make them green. The climate change/environmental issue is full of those kinds of problems.

[krulecello]

Krulecello,

I'm very impressed with what you're doing (not sarcasm, if it sounds that way).

But I assume you realise that not everyone can live that way. I have a flat in one of the world's busiest cities. I don't know how I could become self sufficient. And if it wasn't me living here, it would be someone else.

Any plan has to cater for this big urban society as well as people living out of it.

Hi Andydes, you assume correctly. As I've mentioned before, I'm not interested in everyone living as I do, diversity is a wonderful thing.

What I am interested in is challenging people to look at the facts of how the way we live our lives, here in the wealthy nations, causes wars, poverty, environmental degradation, species extinction, etc.

The most important thing is to become informed about the reality of the 'here and now', else we keep naively worshiping the propaganda of 'never ending economic growth', 'technology will save us' and 'the we want to save our lifestyles' brigade.

Once you understand completely the connection between your actions (like private car ownership, plane travel) and the state of the world (poverty, wars, climate change), once you realise the immense reach of everything that you do, you will want to change, because you are human, and humans do care for other humans (as can be seen after natural or man made disasters, people come out and help each other, this is human.)

Now, what might that change be for you personally, living in a city? There is some imagination and creativity needed here, as will be the case for everybody who chooses to become informed. I can imagine a good start (apart from giving up the car, which is very easy to do in a large city) would be finding others in your area who'd like to set up a community garden (if that's what your interested in), perhaps in a nearby park, the rooftop, ect. And in the future, if more people develop an interest in becoming informed, making choices and being creative, the roads, the parks, the rooftops, the balconies, could all be transformed.

Will this happen, I have no idea. Nobody knows what the future will bring, it's all speculation (based more or less on fact, fiction or propaganda). What I do know, is that I am creating the future every day with my actions, as are you, and everybody else. What world do you want to see?

"You must be the change that you want to see in the world" Gandhi

[krulecello]

Yeah, I agree with you about the DCD clip. It's just that I saw the Bridie clip the other night on Rage so it was up front in my mind.

Cool to see how you are living. Some friends and I are looking to buy some land to build some sustainable and affordable houses etc. I did my Honours in Sustainable Dev. in this exact area. I am working on developing a total on site essential services (water capture and treatment; sewage treatment, and energy production) plus...a reconstruction of the way we own the means of production of esential services (power, water,housing etc)

Very Cool. No doubt you'll learn much from putting all of your theory into practice. Keep us updated on your progress!

[krulecello]

That's pretty cool krule, the lifestyle you got going.
I'm glad all the details are included on the "as builder" part of the site because I was curious about what water filter you used and what kind if fruit trees and veggies were growing.

But what is the 20% food requirements that are not provided, and what about herbs and spices?
Also, what are the critters you have to look out for or be careful of that can get on premises ie poisonous 2m spiders?

The filter is nothing special, just standard for rainwater tanks. At the moment, we only have silverbeet, spinach, coriander, broadbeans, beetroot and red mustard (tastes like wasabi) growing, as it's winter here...and we would usually add this to the pumpkins, potatoes, onions and garlic from the summer crop, which store quite well. Fruit trees, we are currently munching on mandarines, and the lemons are quite numerous (and a few limes).

In spring/summer we can grow most things, tomatoes, cucumbers, capsicum, chilli, eggplants, asparagus, (pumpkins, potatoes, onions, garlic), lettuce, beans, peas, brassicas, etc. Our fruit trees are still young (so not all are producing yet), and apart from citrus, we have quinces, plums, nectarines, peaches, olives, apples, mulberries, figs, wine grapes, almond, etc.

We have a lot of red back spiders, they're poisonous but placid (ie, not aggressive). The main critter issue would be the king brown snakes, which are quite venomous, but they are more afraid of us than we are of them, and they're great for keeping the rodent numbers down. (There are lots of snakes around, but we hardly ever see any.)

The 20% mainly consists of Coffee, Sugar, Cheese, Wine and Rice (and some spices that I don't grow....for I love curries). We have friends up the road who have just got themselves some milking sheep, so hopefully we'll be getting our milk/cheese from them in the future, and there are heaps of wineries around, but they tend to price their wine for the tourist market (ie, well and truly out of our reach financially).

[rote fahne]

^^^^ sounds great. people could seek solutions in the autarcian direction. for people with yuppie ambitions, they could go drive tesla cars, with electricity generated by solar panels and wind energy.

[krulecello]

I'm not trying to save the planet, I am making a rational and therefore radical choice based on good factual information (the kind you are apparently not interested in). In doing so, my brain grows, I have more zest for life, more passion, more 'true' caring for others, I am without depression, without fear, I am not concerned with what others may think of me, or how I am perceived, because I am living life fully, consciously aware. (This is, of course, an ongoing non linear process.....I have not, and do not, expect to arrive.)

The reason several billion people will not give up their cars is because you wont, that is all. It's your limited thinking, reflected back to you in the way you see the world. Projections and deflections.

Saying billions won't stop because I won't is a bit simplistic though really.

Do you understand the concept of projection? You view the world subjectively, we all do to some extent (depending on our interest in becoming informed or remaining ignorant), so the world you see is a reflection of you.

People have all kinds of reasons they wouldn't want to give up travel, and you have no idea of my or anyone else's personal circumstances.

People don't want to give up cars because of selfishness, greed and fear. There are very few people who could genuinely justify owning a private car, or traveling via plane.

Giving up my car would inconvenience me a lot and do absolutely nothing to help this problem.

Giving up your car would do much to help the problem, if only you had an interest in understanding the problem.

maybe you are feeling positive because of your immediate personal experience and forgetting just how many people on this planet don't live like that.

I am well aware of how people in the rest of the world live, like those that sort through piles of rubbish in India, or children that die well before their time because of war and depleted uranium exposure. Why do you think this inequality, poverty and war exists? When you own and drive a car, you are 'feeding the monster', you are telling the 'monster' that you want oil. When you demand a 'greener' car, you are telling the 'monster' that you are ignorant to the laws of physics, which is perfect, because it means you will continue to consume 'greenwash' products, and it's your consumption that is 'feeding the monster'.

I think you can reasonably expect people to make many small changes that can make an accumulative big difference overall, but I don't think you can expect the vast majority to give up being able to get around.

You will feel/think differently if climate change were to effect you, or someone you cared about, directly and severely, as it is increasingly doing so to people in poorer nations. If you ever wake up, you will wonder why it was that you didn't do more. If you continue your slumber, you will remain pointing the finger of blame at governments, etc.

On the other hand, actually pressuring the companies that make the cars and governments to legislate in order to make sure cars are actually not damaging is action that is realistic and could make a huge difference.

There is no such thing as a 'green' car. We are talking about moving a small amount of weight within an extremely large and heavy steel cage (physics, thermodynamics), it's inefficient to start with, even before you add the inefficiency of combustion motors, the inefficiency of production, the inefficiency of materials used, the inefficiency of space, ect. A bicycle is the most efficient form of transportation every invented by humans.

Another thing nobody has mentioned is people with disabilities or health problems. Some people would literally be house bound if they didn't have their own or family members' cars. And not just physical disabilities, but for people with mental health problems getting on a crowded bus or train can be a total nightmare.

People with physical disabilities have already been covered, thanks to myrnova. People with mental health issues would most probably benefit and thrive in a 'sane' world, and bicycle riding is good for mental and physical health.

Part of progressing as a society is to make life better for all. Personally I think we can make life better for everyone on the planet through resourcefulness and technology, the only obstacle I see against that is excessive greed and not holding corporations accountable for their actions.

Technology got us into this problem in the first place, it's not going to get us out of it, at best, it might just delay things a bit. Greed is important and is to be encouraged in a world focused on 'economic' growth. Greed exists at all levels, not just corporations, but also at the level of the individual, it's a human characteristic, one of many, but that doesn't mean we must all be defined by it. Excessive and inefficient use of energy could be seen as being greedy, especially to those that are currently going hungry so that we can drive our cars.

As for the books I said I wouldn't read, that was because you framed it that they are arguing that the only solution is to abandon cars altogether and I think that is totally unrealistic and even dangerous because if you are assuming you have solved the problem by getting rid of cars then there is no reason to make them green. The climate change/environmental issue is full of those kinds of problems.

You wont read them, because you prefer to remain ignorant, 'wilfully ignorant'.

[Forge.]

Well, I'm not sure stating that people who want to keep their cars are selfish, greedy and wilfully ignorant is going to get anyone who needs to be persuaded on side. I don't think that's really that helpful and I said before I think people will switch off if they see it as too hard, or too extreme, especially if they think you are trying to shame them into changing.

I'm actually someone who cares about this issue and I'm not being wilfully ignorant, I just disagree with your assertion that the solution is for everybody to give up cars. Actually that's not entirely true, I think it would work, I just think it's not a viable solution because it isn't going to happen, which is the same as it not being a solution at all.

As it stands currently we have to prepare for the likelihood that there will still be billions of cars on the road for the foreseeable future, so we need to make them as green as possible, then if a significant number of people give them up altogether then even better. But we absolutely need to prepare for the fact that they aren't going anywhere, because that's the most likely scenario.

There might not be such a thing as a "green" car, but you just can't argue that if billions of people are going to drive cars then non polluting cars would be magnitudes better than oil burning cars.

And actually it might be true that the reason it won't work is because most people are actually greedy, selfish and wilfully ignorant on this. I'm not really disputing that point, and don't know how we're going to solve that one.

Technology is what got us into this mess....

It isn't technology that got us into the mess, it's inefficient heavily polluting technology. Technology has made our lives vastly better. I have no desire to go back to a pre-industrial life with no modern medicine, 40 year average lifespan where women have 8 children because 5 of them are expected to die before age 5, none of the universal access to knowledge the internet gives us, or music technology or any of the other things that industrial life gives us.

And I guarantee you neither will most people in the west, and huge numbers in the East are trying their hardest to join in.

But the whole rest of the world isn't living on rubbish tips actually, and if you read what I said I would very much like things to change it so that no-one is. I can't see how that's going to be possible in the current world if we totally abandon advanced technology that requires industrial infrastructure. All that would happen then is more people would end up like that. It might be relatively easy in Australia to live off the land, but in densely populated areas where there are billions of people in a relatively small area it's a different story. The reason the Chinese industrialised in the first place is because so many of the people were starving to death.

We are talking about moving a small amount of weight within an extremely large and heavy steel cage (physics, thermodynamics), it's inefficient to start with,

again, this is just inefficient technology. Cars can be extremely light weight and efficient, and more and more like that are coming out all the time.

Likewise, most of my family lives in the UK. If I, or they, never fly then I just won't ever see them again. Giving up air travel would be a real shame. I would definitely prefer it to be done efficiently and green.

[Forge.]

Noam Chomsky: who owns the Earth:
http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/1 ... -the-earth

[Forge.]

BTW - I was just reading a minute ago that the agriculture industry is still the biggest cause of emissions in Australia, and next is transport, a large portion of which is trucks getting food from A to B to feed people.

[krulecello]

Well, I'm not sure stating that people who want to keep their cars are selfish, greedy and wilfully ignorant is going to get anyone who needs to be persuaded on side. I don't think that's really that helpful and I said before I think people will switch off if they see it as too hard, or too extreme, especially if they think you are trying to shame them into changing.

I'm actually someone who cares about this issue and I'm not being wilfully ignorant, I just disagree with your assertion that the solution is for everybody to give up cars. Actually that's not entirely true, I think it would work, I just think it's not a viable solution because it isn't going to happen, which is the same as it not being a solution at all.

As it stands currently we have to prepare for the likelihood that there will still be billions of cars on the road for the foreseeable future, so we need to make them as green as possible, then if a significant number of people give them up altogether then even better. But we absolutely need to prepare for the fact that they aren't going anywhere, because that's the most likely scenario.

There might not be such a thing as a "green" car, but you just can't argue that if billions of people are going to drive cars then non polluting cars would be magnitudes better than oil burning cars.

And actually it might be true that the reason it won't work is because most people are actually greedy, selfish and wilfully ignorant on this. I'm not really disputing that point, and don't know how we're going to solve that one.

Technology is what got us into this mess....

It isn't technology that got us into the mess, it's inefficient heavily polluting technology. Technology has made our lives vastly better. I have no desire to go back to a pre-industrial life with no modern medicine, 40 year average lifespan where women have 8 children because 5 of them are expected to die before age 5, none of the universal access to knowledge the internet gives us, or music technology or any of the other things that industrial life gives us.

And I guarantee you neither will most people in the west, and huge numbers in the East are trying their hardest to join in.

But the whole rest of the world isn't living on rubbish tips actually, and if you read what I said I would very much like things to change it so that no-one is. I can't see how that's going to be possible in the current world if we totally abandon advanced technology that requires industrial infrastructure. All that would happen then is more people would end up like that. It might be relatively easy in Australia to live off the land, but in densely populated areas where there are billions of people in a relatively small area it's a different story. The reason the Chinese industrialised in the first place is because so many of the people were starving to death.

We are talking about moving a small amount of weight within an extremely large and heavy steel cage (physics, thermodynamics), it's inefficient to start with,

again, this is just inefficient technology. Cars can be extremely light weight and efficient, and more and more like that are coming out all the time.

Likewise, most of my family lives in the UK. If I, or they, never fly then I just won't ever see them again. Giving up air travel would be a real shame. I would definitely prefer it to be done efficiently and green.

Wilful Ignorance = 'When all else fails, a pig headed stubborn refusal to look facts in the face, will see us through' – General Melchett, Blackadder.

Technology = Car = an extremely large and heavy cage that will never be propelled forward by Human power.
Inefficient in construction, deconstruction, combustion, volume, transportation, consumption, infrastructure, occupied space, financial, embodied energy, life duration.....conclusion, will always be grossly inefficient.

Technology = Bicycle = an extremely small and light weight personal vehicle that can easily be propelled forward by Human power.
Efficient in construction, deconstruction, volume, transportation, consumption, infrastructure, occupied space, financial, embodied energy, life duration ...... conclusion, is already highly efficient.

Technology = Plane = A single economy ticket on a return plane flight from Australia to the UK produces more CO2 than driving a small car (Honda Civic 1.4) 20,000km.

On Poverty -

"At least 80% of humanity lives on less than $10 a day."

"The poorest 40 percent of the world’s population accounts for 5 percent of global income. The richest 20 percent accounts for three-quarters of world income."

"Approximately half the world’s population now live in cities and towns. In 2005, one out of three urban dwellers (approximately 1 billion people) was living in slum conditions."

"World's richest 20% consume 76.8%, World's middle 60% consume 21.9% and World's poorest 20% consume 1.5%"

On China -

"The failure of agricultural policies, the movement of farmers from agricultural to industrial work, and possibly weather conditions led to severe famine."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Leap_Forward

On Car Ownership -

In 2010, the number of Cars, Buses and Trucks reached the 1 billion mark. (It is projected to grow to 1.7 Billion by 2035.) Private Car ownership is estimated to be around the 600 million mark, translating to roughly 10% of the worlds population owning a car.

The meaning of all this? If you have access to food, water and shelter, and can also afford to buy and run a car, and/or travel via plane, you are very wealthy by world standards. And if you are this wealthy, you will also be contributing very much more than your fair share of CO2 into the atmosphere, you will be causing health problems to those immediately around you via the shit that comes out of your exhaust, your environmental impact is massive, now and well into the future. And for what? Convenience?? An easy 'care'free existence???

If you want to keep doing what you're doing, believing what you believe, that's entirely up to you, it is your problem, your conscience that you have to answer to at the end of the day.

I will continue to challenge peoples short sightedness, ignorance and propaganda in whichever way I see fit.

[krulecello]

BTW - I was just reading a minute ago that the agriculture industry is still the biggest cause of emissions in Australia, and next is transport, a large portion of which is trucks getting food from A to B to feed people.

Forge, where do you get your information from?

[krulecello]

Noam Chomsky: who owns the Earth:
http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/1 ... -the-earth

Thanks for the link Forge, some good passionate and rational appeals for sanity to prevail.

"Who will defend the Earth? Who will uphold the rights of nature? Who will adopt the role of steward of the commons, our collective possession?

That the Earth now desperately needs defense from impending environmental catastrophe is surely obvious to any rational and literate person. The different reactions to the crisis are a most remarkable feature of current history.

At the forefront of the defense of nature are those often called “primitive”: members of indigenous and tribal groups, like the First Nations in Canada or the Aborigines in Australia - the remnants of peoples who have survived the imperial onslaught. At the forefront of the assault on nature are those who call themselves the most advanced and civilized: the richest and most powerful nations."

[Forge.]

BTW - I was just reading a minute ago that the agriculture industry is still the biggest cause of emissions in Australia, and next is transport, a large portion of which is trucks getting food from A to B to feed people.

Forge, where do you get your information from?

that was from a book on climate change I was reading briefly in a shop I was waiting in yesterday... I couldn't remember the name so that's why I didn't quote it, but it was something like "screw in a lightbulb" and it was an Australian publication. that figure was about the first thing I read, I went straight to the chapter on it in light of this conversation. It was framed in the context that transport will soon avertake agriculture as number one emissions.

I didn't read much, but they were talking about making cars greener, not getting rid of them.

[krulecello]

BTW - I was just reading a minute ago that the agriculture industry is still the biggest cause of emissions in Australia, and next is transport, a large portion of which is trucks getting food from A to B to feed people.

Forge, where do you get your information from?

that was from a book on climate change I was reading briefly in a shop I was waiting in yesterday... I couldn't remember the name so that's why I didn't quote it, but it was something like "screw in a lightbulb" and it was an Australian publication. that figure was about the first thing I read, I went straight to the chapter on it in light of this conversation. It was framed in the context that transport will soon avertake agriculture as number one emissions.

I didn't read much, but they were talking about making cars greener, not getting rid of them.

After a quick search on the internet, the book you skimmed through briefly in a bookshop was "Screw Light Bulbs".
http://uwap.uwa.edu.au/books-and-author ... ght-bulbs/

I have read the introduction, it has been written to appeal to / educate the majority, who are still trying to get their heads around Al Gore. They want to sell books. If they say the truth about cars, they will not sell books, for people worship / idolise / can not image life without cars (amongst other things). To tell the truth about cars would be like trying to sell a book that says God doesn't exist to a Catholic or Evangelicalist.

In Australia, 68% percent of people believe in some kind of 'God', 63% believe in miracles, 51% believe in Angels, 41% believe in astrology, 34% believe in UFO's, 22% believe in witches, 24% are atheist, 7% are agnostic.

In Australia, 50% of households have 'two' or more motor vehicles, 35% of households have 'one' motor vehicle, 8% of households have 'no' motor vehicle, 7% have not stated.

[Forge.]

Wilful Ignorance = 'When all else fails, a pig headed stubborn refusal to look facts in the face, will see us through' – General Melchett, Blackadder

Technology = Car = an extremely large and heavy cage that will never be propelled forward by Human power.
Inefficient in construction, deconstruction, combustion, volume, transportation, consumption, infrastructure, occupied space, financial, embodied energy, life duration.....conclusion, will always be grossly inefficient.

Technology = Bicycle = an extremely small and light weight personal vehicle that can easily be propelled forward by Human power.
Efficient in construction, deconstruction, volume, transportation, consumption, infrastructure, occupied space, financial, embodied energy, life duration ...... conclusion, is already highly efficient.

Technology = Plane = A single economy ticket on a return plane flight from Australia to the UK produces more CO2 than driving a small car (Honda Civic 1.4) 20,000km.

Well, you're assuming that this one set of facts you have are the only significant ones. Just remember for every PhD there is an equal and opposite PhD. Your idea that you are challenging wilful ignorance and "propaganda" in any way you see fit is competely subjective and usually all that will happen is someone from the "other side" who votes LNP and says climate change probably isn't even real anyway will just accuse you of the same thing and find their own "facts" to back it up. One man's good news is another's propaganda.

I have no argument at all against encouraging people to ride bikes, far from it, I just have an argument for preparing for the likelihood that there will be billions of cars — or even just 1 and a bit billion by those figures you quoted — still a large number for them to be still burning oil and taking the view that it doesn't matter anyway because all cars have to go is just irresponsible. Seriously, there is still a frightening number of people who won't even admit climate change is real.

If you want to keep doing what you're doing, believing what you believe, that's entirely up to you, it is your problem, your conscience that you have to answer to at the end of the day.

you really want to do the "it's your conscience" thing?