Our biofuel future
Great podcast/ online at:
http://www.newrules.org/podcast/index.html April 19, 2006: David Morris discusses "America's Oil Addiction" on National Public Radio's On Point
It is an NPR interview of David Morris (optimist) versus (Pessimist), questioning whether biofuels (ethanol, biodiesel, etc) replace oil for tranportation.
It contrasts these two perspective, both which I respect. It is most interesting thatt Morris doesn't seem to want to talk of "powerdown" at all, and implies we can over the long hall rebuild our economy incrementally on technology and solar energy in plants, at least part of our needs.
In contrast XXX basically says the scale of our consumption is far beyond the ability of the environment to support us. Morris purposely forces the issue of the pessimism of XXX. He says optimists rule because they have a reason to get up in the morning and make a difference, while the pessimistic position is too depressing to face.
I might hope in the LONG TERM (1000 years) and a generally lower population (2 billion?) that we might find a balance with the natural systems, depending on solar power, and not depleting the environment.
In the shorter run (<50 years), I basically am a pessimist, believing problems are INTRACTIBLE without a powerdown/conservation as well, and if we WAIT to conserve only when it is demanded, it'll be too late to make a difference to transition within any organized framework. (i.e. poverty will lead to class warfare and economic chaos and the end of democratic instititions.)
I accept Morris's view is perhaps correct "Pointless to give the 'true demands'" will discourage any proactive actions at all to soften the blows ahead. He doesn't bother fighting for the "bigger picture" because we're too far away to reasonably face it.
Anyway, any hope that leads us forward is better than nothing.
http://www.newrules.org/podcast/index.html April 19, 2006: David Morris discusses "America's Oil Addiction" on National Public Radio's On Point
It is an NPR interview of David Morris (optimist) versus (Pessimist), questioning whether biofuels (ethanol, biodiesel, etc) replace oil for tranportation.
It contrasts these two perspective, both which I respect. It is most interesting thatt Morris doesn't seem to want to talk of "powerdown" at all, and implies we can over the long hall rebuild our economy incrementally on technology and solar energy in plants, at least part of our needs.
In contrast XXX basically says the scale of our consumption is far beyond the ability of the environment to support us. Morris purposely forces the issue of the pessimism of XXX. He says optimists rule because they have a reason to get up in the morning and make a difference, while the pessimistic position is too depressing to face.
I might hope in the LONG TERM (1000 years) and a generally lower population (2 billion?) that we might find a balance with the natural systems, depending on solar power, and not depleting the environment.
In the shorter run (<50 years), I basically am a pessimist, believing problems are INTRACTIBLE without a powerdown/conservation as well, and if we WAIT to conserve only when it is demanded, it'll be too late to make a difference to transition within any organized framework. (i.e. poverty will lead to class warfare and economic chaos and the end of democratic instititions.)
I accept Morris's view is perhaps correct "Pointless to give the 'true demands'" will discourage any proactive actions at all to soften the blows ahead. He doesn't bother fighting for the "bigger picture" because we're too far away to reasonably face it.
Anyway, any hope that leads us forward is better than nothing.
posted by Ares Olympus at 4:06 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home