Some reading for the public holiday
The American Prospect (which will set you back $10 or so from a magazine shop as it’s air freighted, but which is thankfully available online) has an excellent special report on the Green Economy in its April Edition.
The lead article on the so-called “carbohydrate economy” is a little dense, but presents a comprehensive case for a shift back from oil-based production to plant-based fibres, plastics and fuels. Articles by Bracken Hendricks and Merrill Goozner discuss the green representation in the American political system. Another puts the case that investing in energy crops could solve the impasse between rich and poor countries when it comes to international trade rules, and others address Green housing, Peak Oil, genetic science and much more. Together they present a comprehensive and largely positive picture of the potential of the “Green Economy” to fill the void left after oil and should provide some solid reading for the day off tomorrow!
Here’s a quote from one of the articles to think about:
The fuel of the future is going to come from fruit like that sumach out by the road, or from apples, weeds, sawdust — almost anything. There is fuel in every bit of vegetable matter that can be fermented. There’s enough alcohol in one year’s yield of an acre of potatoes to drive the machinery necessary to cultivate the fields for a hundred years.
Relevant today, but actually uttered by Henry Ford in 1925!
Hat tip to Stephen Whittington (yes, the same Stephen Whittington!) for this stuff.
April 24th, 2006 at 3:13 pm
This is good “mainstream” (ahem) stuff. It only alludes loosely to it, but these articles show a hint of maturity in the green/climate/ecology/commerce debate in the US.
It shows that the old left/right mindset is redundant if progress is to be made. By depoliticising the argument (or more accurately by accepting that both “left and right” have much to offer) business solutions may evolve into truly viable options sooner, thereby creating change on the scale that we need. Its also important to note that business is a broad group. Co-ops and non-profits have key roles to play.
Any maturity is some time off here. A large part of the blame for that can be placed on lack of clear policy guidence, but our largely myopic media are also culpable. Sustainability is not just a concern of the left. Its just that our media frame contentious elements of it that way.
BTW, whats with the climate expert in the DomPost this morning (The greenhouse delusion pgB7)? Advocating a game of chicken because we dont have perfect knowledge? Another skeptic expert talking about a century of weather rather than millenia of ice core evidence. Has the DomPost gotten spooked by someone playing the left/right/left/right game..?
April 24th, 2006 at 3:58 pm
The Building Green article was interesting as was The Challenge of Peak Oil.
However the others contained a fair proportion of hot air and wishful thinking. These guys don’t seem to know anything about the laws of thermodynamics.
Has anyone read the Economist’s latest line on wishful thinking. TOD do a great job dissecting it. After all in 1999, the Economist was predicting the arrival of $5 crude . LOL.
April 24th, 2006 at 4:53 pm
Enough alcohol in one year’s potato crop yield to drive the required farm machinery for 100 years? Hmmm. Maybe in 1925, when farming wasn’t so heavily mechanised.
April 25th, 2006 at 3:16 pm
I don’t necessarily disagree with green or environmental sentiment - although I do in various parts (peak oil, GM). The link I disagree with is where these ideals become so important that we should pervert logic and force others to do them too.
April 25th, 2006 at 5:47 pm
Vincent Gray appears to be one of the more out-spoken and well known (just not in this country) Climate Change skeptics who is based in little old Wellington. No doubt he is an advisor to the National Party and other “let’s ignore the overwhelming scientific consensus” crowd; he will probably write National’s Kyoto withdrawal letter when they sweep to power in 2008 thanks to Labour’s continued botch ups.
But I digress. Here’s something from the Union of Concerned Scientists (talking about the IPCC review process):
“Finally, several well known, outspoken contrarians, such as Fred Singer and Vincent Gray, contribute directly to the process as reviewers.”
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science/the-ipcc-assessment-proce ss.html
Personally I am sticking with the scientific consensus and not the opinion of the overwhelming minority. But of course the DomPost needs to show that there are two sides to every story (except for Peak Oil of course, there is no story for them). So Tim searches high and low for someone to write a piece that supports his view, and joy, they find one in Crofton Downs.
April 26th, 2006 at 12:29 am
Enough alcohol in one year’s potato crop yield to drive the required farm machinery for 100 years? Hmmm. Maybe in 1925, when there were a few billion less mouths to feed and the average american didn’t eat as much?
Meanwhile, on National’s continuing head in the sand on climate change position, I wrote to Dr Don and got a lovely letter back saying “Don takes the matter of climate change very seriously but he wants a solution that doesn’t harm the economy”.
Right. OK. And your solution would be what exactly?
April 26th, 2006 at 2:19 pm
Stuey - Good on you for writing to Dr Don, there is little point in shrieking at the choir and given that National will likely win in 2008 (mostly because Labour look like losing it at their current course and speed) it doesn’t hurt to try and provide some different points of view to them.
Starting at the top might be a tough one though, the spokespeople for economic development, transport, etc. might be easier targets, and junior / associate spokespeople (e.g. Blumsky for Economic Development) might be more open to new ideas than others.
I believe that the thing with National (and others with a business-as-usual world view) is to focus on challenges and solutions that are ‘no regrets’. I.e. those things that help with climate change but also make our economy more sustainable. I personally find that it is much easier and more direct to make the business case for not linking our economy further to oil due to it’s very volitile nature and inherent risks, than to get someone to get their heads around Climate Change.
Then, if you can get their heads around the need for Oil independance you push for greener solutions so it is a win:win, after all no doubt Solid Energy will start to push Coal-to-Oil soon…
Something interesting that was pointed out to me by a National Party politician (whom I met with to discuss Oil issues and Transmission Gully) is that the current batch of MPs / Caucus have not yet made a policy statement about Transmission Gully.
I suspect which way they will fall on that, but now is the time to take the “Option 3″ style argument to the Wellington based National MPs (who have not been approached or briefed by anyone from Option 3 - how can they take informed positions if they don’t get briefed?) and for us as individuals to do the same.
Green economy ideas are for the large part all about economics and growth, and I really think it is possible to follow the lead of the US and get a more bi-partisan approach to energy issues… They are doing a hell of a lot more than we are.
April 26th, 2006 at 4:38 pm
I just read the Vincent Gray piece, and it was almost painful. As well as the politicised tone and misrepresentations of the mainstream scientists’ work, most of his points appear to be old discredited arguments or just irrelevant.
And as for the opening statement… “New Zealand has been treated to a flurry of one-sided propaganda to sell the idea that increasing greenhouse gases are harming the climate”. In the Dominion Post you certainly get one-sided propoganda, but only from the contrarian fringe (and editorials, of course).
I can’t wait for the follow-up articles claiming that CFCs, cigarettes, asbestos, and nuclear fallout are all harmless victims of scare stories…