The Transition Movement discussion
Random optimisms
date
newest »
newest »
Mod
The Guardian began a campaign about a year ago to urge some of the world's largest philanthropic organizations to get fossil fuel companies out of their investment portfolios. (This is what the "divestiture" campaign is, but not just for Philanthropic orgs, for everyone.)
In the e-mail they referenced a Guardian report that the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation
"has sold off its entire $187m investment in BP. There's no word from them on why, but it certainly looks like the foundation is quietly getting out of fossil fuel companies. Since 2014, it has dropped 85% of such investments it had held.
Bill Gates says he's not keen on the divestment argument but we know that the pressure you've put on the foundation through Keep it in the Ground - as well as the folks at Gates Divest in Seattle and the wider divestment movement - has been having an impact behind the scenes. "
The email also mentions that recently, Portugal went four straight days on renewable energy alone, and
"Last Sunday, Germany powered almost all its electricity needs from clean sources. There was so much renewable energy on the grid that at several times in the day, power prices turned negative - effectively paying consumers to use it."
Here's the article:
http://www.theguardian.com/environmen...
Mod
https://newrepublic.com/article/13568...
Hard to say whether it's an optimism or a pessimism. It is an optimism because the article references recent studies showing that if most of the world went on a WWII-style industrial footing, producing/installing infrastructure for wind turbines & solar cells, it would still be possible to see global warming peak and start to recede within 2-3 decades, keeping the overall warming below the 2C degrees desired.
This is something that Lester Brown started talking about many years ago, in his series of Plan B books. Brown, however, never referred (that I know of) to actual studies that showed that his idea was sufficient (if implemented) for achieving any specific goal.
The pessimistic take on all this is of course, "what is the chance that a sufficient effort would/will actually be made by enough countries to make a difference?"
Ted wrote: "Bill McKibben recently sent an email from 350.org with a link to this article which recently appeared in the New Republic.https://newrepublic.com/article/13568......"
Although I appreciate the message and the intention with which Bill has written the article, I don't feel comfortable with that sort of «Climate change reductionism» message where everything seems to be reduced to the CO2 PPM concentration in the atmosphere, and other vital issues like pollution, erosion and resource depletion are barely mentioned or touched upon. I'm aware Bill McKibben knows about all of those, but he somehow consciously chooses to concentrate his message just on the climate change issue like with this one you can save everything. And I don't think this is exactly the right way to proceed.
For example, of course I would support that massive resource mobilization to transition out of our fossil-based culture to a much more solar-based one that he's calling for, but what about the resource consumption issue, the earth demographics, and the biosphere carrying capacity depletion issues? Just have in mind that solar-based techs have many disadvantages in terms of energy intensity and adaptability than fossil-based ones, and for now they can be put in practice because they can take advantage of the current fossil-based infrastructure to be build and maintained. He mentions cars. So what about if we'd try to transition all the current car park to electric and/or hydrogen, but we'd keep all our car-centered living arrangements intact (suburbia, daily travels, consumption patterns...)? Even if we'd decrease the CO2 PPM, all the required mining, processing and discarding (and if done by big multinational players, the social inequality that provokes, but that's another matter to discuss separately) would still be nefarious for the environment and for humanity's future, and would translate in a very grim future for humanity and the ecosphere as a whole.
This is why I think that leaving aside issues like the imperious need for a change in consumption and living patterns immediately, and instead focusing to a single variable culprit which we can solve with big technological fixes and gargantuan central government efforts, cannot be of much help to advance the green cause much, and can even unintentionally delay some efforts in the right direction. I hope I'm completely wrong on this.
Mod
https://newrepublic.com/article/13568......"
I agree with the thrust of what you're saying, David. And I also agree that the other issues you're talking about are extremely important. About all I would suggest (speaking for McKibben) is that one man, by spreading his message over more and more issues, perhaps dilutes what can be accomplished by concentrating more on an issue that he feels may be slightly more important than the rest. There's certainly room for disagreement on which of these problems might be most important.
It really is a good idea to keep mentioning the problems not being emphasized in any particular book or article (which highlights a single one of them) - as you have done very effectively in your comment.
I guess I would disagree to a certain extent with your final paragraph. The "green cause" is a pretty vague phrase, and it's that vagueness which makes it so difficult to awake people to the dangers associated with a specific problem (if you're not "preaching to the choir", that is.)
Mod
The middle panel of Hieronymus Bosch's triptych "The Garden of Earthly Delights", called Humanity Before the Flood".
This famous work by Bosch plays an interesting role in the film, serving as a bookend for DiCaprio's own story of his years of engagement with the issue.
I was aware of the film because my son texted my yesterday that he planned on watching it with my grandkids, 8 and 11. Hope they did watch, and got something out of it.
DiCaprio tries to highlight both the enormity of what we are facing, and offer rays of hope - which he himself doesn't seem to feel particularly optimistic about.
I'm going to post this same comment in the "Random Optimisms" thread.
Mod
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...
Yes, I run across positive stories like that now and then--creative new responses to dilemmas!