The Transition Movement discussion
Discuss: State of the World 2013
>
Reading schedule & general comments
date
newest »
newest »
Mod
Again, however, it should be possible for everyone to proceed with both readings and comments at their own pace.
Mod
There's a lot of history and quite a bit of controversy regarding these issues, plus a lot of material published, which might be nice to discuss as an adjunct to this book.
Mod
I'll put up a new discussion thread as you suggest, perhaps initially outside the book's folder, since it is or wider interest than just pertaining to this book (I think).
Mod
Mod
Mod
Mod
If you have the e-book version the "Year in review" diagram is almost worthless, at least on my Kindle. The multipage diagram is displayed on a single page (making it unreadable) and if you go to maximum magnification it is too blurry to read.
However, it you search the book for "year in review" you will find the section in the notes that has the references for all the events, and you can generally kill two birds with one stone there by getting an idea of what the event is, and where there is more information about it.
If anyone wants, we can set up a discussion thread for this introductory section. There are a lot of notable events in the section, some encouraging, others not.
Mod
Mod
I'm not exactly sure where to post this but I wanted to say how powerfully this book is impacting me. Maybe even changing my life. And I thought I was somewhat "aware" before! I cannot thank you all enough-especially you, Traveller for inviting me into the group. I don't think I have anything to contribute ti the discussions but I am following them with great interest.Thanks again everyone.
Mod
Ellie, I'm go glad that you are having such a positive reaction to the book. Please don't hesitate to chime in whenever you have something to say, we aren't expecting profound observations. Any comment made has a chance to get a response from someone else and has a positive impact.
Mod
Mod
Mod
Mod
Island Press was kind enough to send an advance copy for review.
Mod
But here's the problem; "the group" you refer to barely exists. When I post a review of the chapter, typically no more than a couple people even look at it, no one leaves any comments. The group is basically moribund.
For now I would suggest posting a link in any or all of the general discussion threads. Whether anyone will see it is questionable.
I can also send out a message to everyone in the group with a link to your review, which I will do. Again, however, I suspect that few of these messages are ever read.
I will also bookmark the review, for whatever good that does.
Once the group (that is, me) is done with 2013, I'm going to try to get some feedback from group members about how to proceed.
I would like to have some idea of how many of the 50-some people in the group really have any interest in this. I know there are some (local to me) that joined just because I personally invited them, but they don't ever even log on to GoodReads. So what good is that?
Mod
But here's the problem; "the group" you refer to barely exists. When I post a review of the chapter, typically no more than a couple people..."
Thanks for that! Ted, I think the problem is that people who are members of the group are more or less in consensus about the stuff you post. I for one go through your updates and find myself in full agreement, but beyond a redundant 'I agree', where do we go from there?
I think we should group read some of those anti-sustainability or even pro-establishment economics books and discuss them - that might generate more discussion.
So the lack of activity should not be reason to wind it down... If you give me a schedule, I can regularly contribute here with reviews etc., as required.
Mod
And as I said, very few even see the postings. I don't know if a non-moderator can see the number of people (not who) have viewed the various threads, but I can.
The wider issue is what exactly can be accomplished by such a group? It's got to lead to more than just reading. Reading won't do any good, especially because as you say most members who really care at all about any of this are already pretty much convinced, hence it's the very common problem of "preaching to the choir".
Anyway, perhaps next week you and I (at least) can talk more about this. I think Traveller might join in also, others I'm not sure of. I do know that Khaleel is one of those who does at least look at the postings, so perhaps he might have something to contribute. And perhaps I could get someone local to join in. We'll see.
As the Whos in Whoville would say: We are here! We are here! I read a lot of Ted's commentaries on the chapters...So I encourage Riku to post his review here.
Mod
I read a lot of Ted's commentaries on the chapters...So I encourage Riku to post his review here."
Here you go, Elisabeth: https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...
Hope you find it useful.
Mod
Mod
I read a lot of Ted's commentaries on the chapters...So I encourage Riku to post his review here."
Elisabeth, it's great to hear your input! 8)
Mod
could you point me to any unbiased impact studies in the US? Newspapers in India are pretending as if US has solved everything with fracking tech.
Mod
Riku, it's hard to have a longterm study when this sort of fracking (horizontal and with lots of toxic chemicals and millions of gallons of water)is relatively new. Scientists (and doctors) are trying to document and measure the damage as it happens...The recent IPCC report indicated that methane is even worse for climate than anticipated:http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013...
...and gas is leaking more than anticipated from every phase of development and use:
http://www.desmogblog.com/2014/02/14/...
and I have been writing blog posts about what's happening in Md -- such as this one that refers to ongoing science (and has links to more ongoing science):
http://climatehoward.wordpress.com/20...
If the climate is near tipping points, spewing more methane from fracked gas into the atmosphere for the next 40 or so years is just reckless. True, methane dissipates in 10-15 years, but if we push the ecosystem beyond some tipping points in the next 20 years, the damage will be done.
And methane is only one problem with fracking -- and Cove Point and all the other LNG export facilities rely on fracked gas. It is a highly industrial activity happening next to homes and schools...and takes water out of the water cycle...and leaves toxic chemicals sloshing around below the surface. These wells will have to be checked forever (like that's going to happen), and if they are leaking, who will be there to fix them a decade or so from now? No one.
Mod
Elisabeth likely could, but I can't, since I've been somewhat ambivalent about fracking. I'm not ambivalent about Cove Point however.
India is hopeful that the U.S. will become a big supplier of fracked/liquified gas to India. In fact that is the primary purpose of Cove Point. (Not just India, but China also I believe)
I'll see if another friend of mine can give me some links. The longitudinal studies are unlikely.
Mod
Thanks, Elisabeth!
Ted....ambivalent about fracking? say it ain't so.
Mod
Thanks, Elisabeth. I can see that I need to learn a lot more about it. As Ted says, the political motivations of the press decides our everyday education...
Mod
Ambivalent in the sense that simply from the local environmental issues, there certainly isn't any reason why it couldn't be regulated appropriately, and done safely. Of course neither of those outcomes is likely And from a larger perspective, it clearly has very few pluses, massively outweighed by a host of minuses. But my views will never make any difference in what ultimately transpires.
I used to believe that even one single individual action could be a "tipping point" (chaos theory). That may be theoretically true, but the probabilities would be so small that they aren't worth considering.
Fighting these things (Keystone, Cove Point) has to be done. But it's always playing defense - rear-guard actions where a win may come along once in awhile, but immediately there's a new assault from a different direction.
This comes from chapter 27, written by Erik Assadourian (who works for WW and is a member of this group).
It's true: Immediately there's a new assault--because those invested in fossil fuels can't leave them in the ground. Those companies have value because of what's still in the ground. So, they have to find ways to get the last drop out of the earth (ocean drilling, fracking, mountaintop removal for coal, drilling in the Arctic....)...and they are allowed to do that without paying the full costs to the ecosystem...ie, they dump their pollution into your and my and others' air or water or soil. I don't think fracking could ever be regulated enough...
Mod
I certainly don't think it ever will, even if it could be. And basically you're right, even with superb techniques and superb regulations, accidents can't possibly be prevented.
Mod
============================================
Ted - there was a special session at December's American Geophysical Union meeting in San Francisco. The session covered several aspect of Fracking, such as water and air pollution. Fracking has gotten the attention of geophysical community and serious research is underway. There is no single study that nails the environmental impact of fracking. As in most research topics, answers and solutions do not come in a single power point presentation. Also as in climate change one needs to be careful in sorting the science and the politics (actually you don't need to be careful, only use common sense).
If you want, I can begin to direct you to some of this research. As I see papers come across my "desk", I will send them to you.
But here is place to start. These two sites sweep through the science literature and some media summarizing specific papers and reports.
www.sciencedaily.com/
www.sciencenews.org/
Just put "fracking" in their search boxes.
Try also the EPA website and put fracking in their search box. There is wealth of information including research and policy making
http://www.epa.gov/
Your friend can always google, "environmental impacts of fracking" and find much to read, but will have to sort the BS and the hard science.
Whether these are unbiased would likely be in the eyes of reader.
There is a saying to not believe anything you read in the newspapers. That's where your friend should start.
Mod
============..."
Thank, Ted. He is right - google searching throws up mostly BS, and very opinionated BS.
I will go through those sites to get at some research and post back when I do.
Mod
just wanted to share a recent Economist article here. It says: A world in which the leading petrostate is a liberal democracy has much to recommend it.
http://www.economist.com/news/leaders...
That article has a pay wall, but I'm disappointed to see the title -- a fossil-fueled energy boom is probably not good for America or the climate or the environment or our health. I've read a few articles at investment sites saying production from the Marcellus and other shales is slowing...And that means more and more wells would have to be drilled, especially if the plan is to export. Much of this fracking is near homes, schools, farms, so everywhere becomes an industrial zone -- with air and water pollution and threats to health. I have to say I'm tired of us having to show it's hazardous. They need to show it's not hazardous. But instead, we have given them a pass on some key environmental and land-use laws and let them experiment on us.
Mod
The article sort of has the sound of a blog or opinion piece. I took a brief look at the comments, here's what the first one said:
"This is truly schizophrenic. Do TE's economics editors even read what their colleagues in the science section write?
TE's happiness with fracking oil and gas is like a junkie celebrating an unexpected find of heroin."
Who benefits from fracking? Fossil fuel companies make loads of cash. A small amount of that is a windfall to the landowners who get something (generally not much) for the mineral rights they have signed away.
It could be argued that the people who use the energy benefit. But that benefit has to be weighed against the harm from burning (and producing) this fossil fuel. A short term benefit against a long term disaster.
Finally, people living in the fracking area (including any who benefit, or "benefit", as above) pay a potentially enormous price, as Elisabeth says.
The only party to benefit without any cost is the fossil fuel company. What's new?
Mod
Mod
Mod
When you say "find most defenses", do you mean that the other articles defend fracking against the objections to it? I probably wouldn't find them very compelling. But the bottom line is that I read, absorb, and am able to judge stuff like this so much slower than you do Riku, that it would be a major project for me. I might be able to take a brief look.
What must be understood is that fracked natural gas is nothing like ordinary well-pumped natural gas, so far as the carbon footprint is concerned. Several studies (Elisabeth can supply the refs I think) have concluded that when one takes into account methane leaks and all the extraordinary other steps required to get the gas via fracking, the carbon footprint is on a par with burning coal. So at least from that point of view, taking into account all the other risks, there is really no justification for it.
Other than money, of course. Benefit the few at the cost of the many, if I may be somewhat inflammatory again. 8{
Mod
I'm not sure I understand what the "overall positive" consists of?
Mod
I'm not sure I..."
Don't get me wrong, Ted. I am just looking at the article on its own terms. It basically assumes that the env effects can be contained and goes on to talk o the geopolitical effects.
If "A world in which the leading petrostate is a liberal democracy has much to recommend it." is true,
then we might see less of the 'resource curse' and resultant wars and destabilisations.
africa, middle-east, etc might find less funding for weapons and less interference
the dictatorial regimes might find that they cannot bank on easy money
more selfishly, pakistan might find no money for terrorism (!)
companies will have less incentive to go hunting for easier grounds where less well-regulated regimes help them rape the natural bounty
--- all this might lead to a situation where America becomes a majpor oil supplier and being a well-regulated country also contains its bad effects to a point.
Extrapolating so much and stopping there would be a good recommendation for fracking?
I would however go further - if America makes fracking universally acceptable, we will end up exporting the tech without the regulation and soon the rest of the world would be addicted too.
So yes, a few short term gains might be there. In the long term it is still iffy. That is my take on the article and its follow-ups
Mod
Under the very best assumptions, this may be true. But then, containing the bad effects to our own ecosystem in the U.S. cannot be expected to appeal to my sense of goodness, especially when I don't consider that the fracked gas is any better than coal.
The "green" advantages of fracked natural gas, the pooh-poohing of risks and safety issues, is nothing but a smoke screen. These are not disinterested, unbiased claims being made by disinterested, unbiased scientists. This is propaganda being financed by the fossil fuel industry.
Sorry, but The Economist (the biggest, most prestigious supporter of capitalism in the journalistic world) won't convince me otherwise.
It's too bad, because as the commenter that I mentioned in #39 implied, The Economist has for a log time been an advocate for the correctness of the science behind global warming. But now when some of that same science comes up against capitalism in a very direct way, it gets shunted aside.
Mod
Under the very best assumptions, t..."
I agree, Ted. I just thought it was an interesting perspective to discuss. I had not thought of it before I came across this edition of the magazine.
Mod
I'm going for a walk.
Mod
I'm going fo..."
I am sorry if I got you upset! But I am sure you appreciate the value of a theoretical discussion too. You need to beat The Economist to win! :)
Mod
..."
No, Riku, I wasn't upset. Just needed to get my walk in. You are way too nice to get even a sometimes-grumpy person like me upset, for more than a few seconds. 8)
There was a local fellow whose opinion I respect quite a bit, who said a year or more ago that he wasn't really convinced that fracking couldn't be done in a manner that would make it a net positive for society. I was willing to believe that he might be right, but (a) I'm not sure he still thinks that, and (b) what I know of the evidence makes me now think that it shouldn't be done.
It's one of those things that to evaluate really analytically, you have to (1) determine the real (not claimed) benefits, then (2) somehow evaluate or weight those benefits, then (3) determine the real (not claimed) risks, and (4) put probabilities on each of them occurring, and (5) then make a value judgement as to how bad it would be if the risk did occur, and (6) give a weight to that occurrence, and finally (7) sum up all these things in some way that seems to make sense economically, socially, and from a social justice viewpoint.
An awful lot of work, fraught with value judgements, assumptions, guesses about probabilities - to say nothing of the fact that I didn't even mention how the benefits and the costs are not likely to be apportioned to the same segments of society, which just throws another whole dimension into the difficulty of making a rational decision.
As you can guess, it's not a project that I'm keen on undertaking, nor one that I'm confident could even be done in a manner that would be accepted as impartial and fair.
Week of: Chapter
May 19 1. Beyond Sustainable
THE SUSTAINABILITY METRIC
May 26 2. Respecting Planetary Boundaries and Reconnecting to the Biosphere
June 2 3. Defining a Safe and Just Space for Humanity
June 9 4. Getting to One-Planet Living
June 16 5. Sustaining Freshwater and Its Dependents
June 23 6. Sustainable Fisheries and Seas: preventing Ecological Collapse
June 30 7. Energy as Master Resource
July 7 8. Renewable Energy’s Natural Resource Impacts
July 14 9. Conserving Nonrenewable Resources
July 21 Wrapup discussion of Part 1
GETTING TO TRUE SUSTAINABILITY
July 28 10. Re-engineering Cultures to Create a Sustainable Civilization
August 4 11. Building a Sustainable and Desirable Economy-in-Society-in-Nature
August 11 12. Transforming the Corporation into a Driver of Sustainability
August 18 13. Corporate Reporting and Externalities
August 25 14. Keep Them in the Ground: Ending the Fossil Fuel Era
September 1 15. Beyond Fossil Fuels: Assessing Energy Alternatives
September 8 16. Energy Efficiency in the Built Environment
September 15 17. Agriculture: Growing Food – and Solutions
September 22 18. Protecting the Sanctity of Native Foods
September 29 19. Valuing Indigenous Peoples
October 6 20. Crafting a New Narrative to Support Sustainability
October 13 21. Moving Toward a Global Moral Consensus on Environmental Action
October 20 22. Pathways to Sustainability: Building Political Strategies
October 27 23. Moving From Individual Change to Societal Change
November 3 Wrapup discussion of Part 2
OPEN IN CASE OF EMERGENCY
November 10 24. Teaching for Turbulence
November 17 25. Effective Crisis Governance
November 24 26. Governance in the Long Emergency
December 1-21 27. Building an Enduring Environmental Movement
December 22-Jan 4 28. Resistance: Do the Ends Justify the Means?
January 5 29. The Promises and Perils of Geoengineering
January 12 30. Cuba: Lessons from a Forced Decline
January 19 31. Climate Change and Displacements
January 26 32. Cultivating Resilience in a Dangerous World
February 2 33. Shaping Community Responses to Catastrophe
February 9 34. Is It Too Late?
February 16 Wrapup discussion of Part 3 and the entire book