Better later than never
Big projects take big vision. It was 1961 when President Kennedy proposed the U.S. send a man to the moon and back before the end of the decade:
http://history.nasa.gov/moondec.html May 25, 1961 speech [after April 12, 1961, when first Russian Cosmonaut Yuri Gagarin first man in space]
Well, that mission - focusing the economic and intellectual power of a nation of 180 million people and some 8 years, we reached our goal and landed on the moon, with Apollo 11, on July 16, 1969.
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/expmoon/Apollo11/A11_oview.html
A magnificient triumph of the human spirit and ingenuity, even if it was funded primarily by a cold war competition with the U.S.S.R.
Well, we don't have the same cold war now, but there's a bigger world competition growing - for access to the last of the world's cheap oil, or at least that is the reactionary vision, the short term vision that defines our success.
In this new competition, the two biggest importers of petroleum are U.S. and China - both original oil exporters, and also both still big players on the production side, even if their internal demand has now exceeded their production.
It's not really a close competition. The U.S. consumes 21 million barrels of oil per day to China's 6 million barrels. WE PRODUCE about 7 mb/d, so we're IMPORTING twice as much as China's total consumption!
If China were to EQUAL our per capita oil consumption, they'd require about 80 million barrels/day, coincidentally about equal to current WORLD consumption.
Still, little old China is being blamed for causing the rising oil prices in the last year because it's rate of imports is increasing greatly. China's looking hard for market access for oil - from two of our big-5 suppliers - Canada and Venesuela. Elbowroom in the oil market is getting a little tight.
Given these events, you might think it would be in the best interest of the U.S. to use conservation efforts to reduce our consumption.
While our focus this year apparently is more on the Alaska reserves being put on the market.
Myself, I would welcome something more like the creation of a national mission - to create a oil-free community by the year 2015. A modern city that can function entirely on local energy resources, at least as a goal. I'm not sure how big the city might be, although I think it would include a wider community for local food production. And sense we don't exactly know what we're doing, I'd say we should make a number of such experiments. Each can optimize to their local advantages. Each will carefully measure "inputs/outputs" to qualify success and progress. HECK, perhaps the country should be divided into 12 regions, and have one such community per region.
There might be diversity within the communities - so some might go full solar power, and others might use local woods for fuel. It would seem many should seriously look into animals for labor, but not as a proven best solution, but as a proven solution to challenge more modern ideas.
These communities would be considered "universitities" of learning. While they are being subsidized, they can also take in money from student tuition. There would not be unlimited freedom for moving there. All land would be "community owned" and central planning would offer a framework for development and limitations against development that didn't meet their goals.
I know unfortunately it would seem I'm asking for communism, but not in the dictatorial sense, but in the community of survival sense.
The experiment would have to limit certain types of imports and exports because they would corrupt the internal balance of development. Bringing in propane tanks might seem a good decision, but it would need to be balanced with goals of reduced external dependence. Individuals would not have the right to buy from the outside directly.
Similarly for food. Experimenting in low-energy farming methods won't work if people can just go outside and buy as much food as they like, even if early on, the community might need to be subsidized with external food.
Overall it would seem the model of such a community is more like that of the military than civil communities. I mean in the sense that individual freedoms are limited, and the community can dictate to members what work is needed. On the other hand, leadership may not need to be a fixed hierarchy, except as a general early deference to existing experience and skills.
Well, this vision is mush, AND it MAY be too late, if too late means by the time such organization was attempted, there wouldn't be enough resources to fund it. Subsidy is a hard game. Those being subsidized fear daily how long it will last, and those on the outside are impatient the day they find other uses for the displaced money.
I suppose in the coming decades there'll be many such wild ideas of "communism" - of reallocating land to a collective organization. Maybe it'll be easy for some, and maybe impossible for others.
It would be nice to have a president who could imagine challenging our dependency by diversifying our communities into local support systems. What could it hurt?
Of course perhaps there'd be no volunteers? Perhaps the powerdown lifestyle stills seems too hard for us. I mean we're "advanced" now. We can't be bothered with "manual labor", right? There must be another way.
I'm not saying all experiments have to be powerdown types, but they do need to consider how we can grow food without fossil fuels. We don't yet have a clear industrial energy source that is a closed loop. Do we really think we can use nuclear power for everything?
Anyway, I think the experimental communities are the way to go - focused research on fundamental problems and the best local solutions that can be found. As-is, I'm not convinced we know what the "carrying capacity" of any region is because of our energy subsidy. Maybe we can figure these things without building them first. I don't know. Maybe my experiment itself is flawed?
I think it's late, but it can't yet be too late, can it?
http://history.nasa.gov/moondec.html May 25, 1961 speech [after April 12, 1961, when first Russian Cosmonaut Yuri Gagarin first man in space]
Well, that mission - focusing the economic and intellectual power of a nation of 180 million people and some 8 years, we reached our goal and landed on the moon, with Apollo 11, on July 16, 1969.
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/expmoon/Apollo11/A11_oview.html
A magnificient triumph of the human spirit and ingenuity, even if it was funded primarily by a cold war competition with the U.S.S.R.
Well, we don't have the same cold war now, but there's a bigger world competition growing - for access to the last of the world's cheap oil, or at least that is the reactionary vision, the short term vision that defines our success.
In this new competition, the two biggest importers of petroleum are U.S. and China - both original oil exporters, and also both still big players on the production side, even if their internal demand has now exceeded their production.
It's not really a close competition. The U.S. consumes 21 million barrels of oil per day to China's 6 million barrels. WE PRODUCE about 7 mb/d, so we're IMPORTING twice as much as China's total consumption!
If China were to EQUAL our per capita oil consumption, they'd require about 80 million barrels/day, coincidentally about equal to current WORLD consumption.
Still, little old China is being blamed for causing the rising oil prices in the last year because it's rate of imports is increasing greatly. China's looking hard for market access for oil - from two of our big-5 suppliers - Canada and Venesuela. Elbowroom in the oil market is getting a little tight.
Given these events, you might think it would be in the best interest of the U.S. to use conservation efforts to reduce our consumption.
While our focus this year apparently is more on the Alaska reserves being put on the market.
Myself, I would welcome something more like the creation of a national mission - to create a oil-free community by the year 2015. A modern city that can function entirely on local energy resources, at least as a goal. I'm not sure how big the city might be, although I think it would include a wider community for local food production. And sense we don't exactly know what we're doing, I'd say we should make a number of such experiments. Each can optimize to their local advantages. Each will carefully measure "inputs/outputs" to qualify success and progress. HECK, perhaps the country should be divided into 12 regions, and have one such community per region.
There might be diversity within the communities - so some might go full solar power, and others might use local woods for fuel. It would seem many should seriously look into animals for labor, but not as a proven best solution, but as a proven solution to challenge more modern ideas.
These communities would be considered "universitities" of learning. While they are being subsidized, they can also take in money from student tuition. There would not be unlimited freedom for moving there. All land would be "community owned" and central planning would offer a framework for development and limitations against development that didn't meet their goals.
I know unfortunately it would seem I'm asking for communism, but not in the dictatorial sense, but in the community of survival sense.
The experiment would have to limit certain types of imports and exports because they would corrupt the internal balance of development. Bringing in propane tanks might seem a good decision, but it would need to be balanced with goals of reduced external dependence. Individuals would not have the right to buy from the outside directly.
Similarly for food. Experimenting in low-energy farming methods won't work if people can just go outside and buy as much food as they like, even if early on, the community might need to be subsidized with external food.
Overall it would seem the model of such a community is more like that of the military than civil communities. I mean in the sense that individual freedoms are limited, and the community can dictate to members what work is needed. On the other hand, leadership may not need to be a fixed hierarchy, except as a general early deference to existing experience and skills.
Well, this vision is mush, AND it MAY be too late, if too late means by the time such organization was attempted, there wouldn't be enough resources to fund it. Subsidy is a hard game. Those being subsidized fear daily how long it will last, and those on the outside are impatient the day they find other uses for the displaced money.
I suppose in the coming decades there'll be many such wild ideas of "communism" - of reallocating land to a collective organization. Maybe it'll be easy for some, and maybe impossible for others.
It would be nice to have a president who could imagine challenging our dependency by diversifying our communities into local support systems. What could it hurt?
Of course perhaps there'd be no volunteers? Perhaps the powerdown lifestyle stills seems too hard for us. I mean we're "advanced" now. We can't be bothered with "manual labor", right? There must be another way.
I'm not saying all experiments have to be powerdown types, but they do need to consider how we can grow food without fossil fuels. We don't yet have a clear industrial energy source that is a closed loop. Do we really think we can use nuclear power for everything?
Anyway, I think the experimental communities are the way to go - focused research on fundamental problems and the best local solutions that can be found. As-is, I'm not convinced we know what the "carrying capacity" of any region is because of our energy subsidy. Maybe we can figure these things without building them first. I don't know. Maybe my experiment itself is flawed?
I think it's late, but it can't yet be too late, can it?
posted by Ares Olympus at 5:27 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home