And pesticide laden petroleumm grown food is now so rare <g>,
>
>
><snip>. I think we're already seeing how reduced
> consumption is depressing the economy's rebound as fewer people
> either have the means or the will to consume at previous rates.
Giving the voluntary simplicity movement credit for this is like
giving the Iraq invasion credit for the anti-Syrian demonstrations in
Lebano
> >So take the case of transportation. What can you do as an
> > individual? Buy a diesel car, and run it on biodiesel, knowing you
> > are using five to twenty times as much as could be used sustainably
> > if this was done widely?
>
> I don't understand what your "five to twenty times" is referring to.
> A bit more fossil fuel is required to make a gallon of diesel over a
> gallon of gasoline, but when common rail diesel engines can make a
> peppy car that gets 60-80 mpg, and when B100 (100% biodiesel) reduces
> particulates by 70%, carbon monoxide by 50%, total hydrocarbons by
> 40%, sulfates by 100%, over standard diesel fuel
I'm not arguing against biodiesel. I'm arguing you can only make so much sustainably. Putting it into 60mpg cars won't stretch it out far enough. You have to get more efficienct than that. Ultimately the only solution is a mixture of electric trains (far more efficienct thany any care can be, electric cars, (not as efficient as electric trains, but usable in areas where they are not) and plug hybrid ultralight biodiesel driven cars (not as efficient as electric cars, but with the longer range that comes from carrying their own fuel, and still able run off battery for short trip.
> >But in most of the U.S. you don't have sustainable
> >transportation available.
>
> Because we're spending all our money being imperialists trying to
> control the last of the oil reserves.
My point. You need political change. Also to answer a point I snipped, the European biodiesel though many times ours still produces about 5% or less of auto fuel consumption for Europe. You cannot use biofuels as your primary transporation fuel without a huge increase in efficiency - which requires political change.
<snip>
> those who buy 2000 sq. ft. houses with vaulted ceilings for only 2
> people, each commuting in separate SUVs. Do you know people like
> this?
Again the point is that it is individually rational for people to make those decisions; it is *socially* irrational We subsidize suburbs at the expense of cities, in a huge number of areas - highways, water, schools, then express disapproval of people who make what seems the rational decision for them - given the incentives we are given.
>
> >But he
> >solutions are social solutions, not individual solutions.
>
> Doesn't it have to be a combination of both? Isn't the individual
> aspect why we still experience traffic jams in cities that do offer
> convenient and even cheaper mass transit?
Nope - there is no major metropolitan area that everyplace is accesible by transit conveniently and easily. I guarantee you there are place in the greater NY city Metropolitan area that are easier to access by car than by mass transit even if you have to pass through Manhattan traffic jams to dos. If you are familiar with the city you can tell me what they are better than I can. And NY has the best public transit in the U.S. (which is still a joke compare to Europe.)
> we need to "make the switch" to alternatives and we need to do it
> fast, while there is still enough fossil fuel to support the
> transition phase. Otherwise things could get real ugly, real fast.
Which you will not do through individual action. It does not work
unless the whole society does it. Individuals trying to opt out one at
a time does not change society
>
> >And you know what? Most people in the U.S. would support this; at
> >least every survey has shown this. But it is strongly against the
> >interest of the owners of capital. Not just the car and auto
> >companies. Capital in general hates the idea of more taxes for more
> >public works and more regulations to tell them how to spend the
> >money they extract from ordinary people.
>
> Isn't this a major reason why we can't depend on political solutions
> and must rely instead on the collective force of individual
> solutions? We won't get solutions from politicians.
Nope you get the solution from social movements which grow big enough to force politicans to do what they want. Don't like the odds. Trying to "starve the owners of capital into submission" will be worse.
Here is the bottom line. We have locked a certain amount of global warming in already. If we stopped consuming fossil fuels tommorrow, we have already locked in centuries of climate disruption that will make the planet less hospitable to human life. But the irreversible changes are small enough that we can adapt to them, and survive. We somewhere between ten and forty years to phase out fossil fuels (not begin phasing out fossil fuels, but finish phasing out fossil fuels) before we lock in a lot more, lock in the planet to a permanent rapid state of climate disruption - to the point where you can no longer count on having a climate, but only weather. To the point where maybe weather changes will be so random and extreme that you will need glass houses to create environments with stable enough climates for agriculture. The odds are pretty steep against us making the changes in time. But political movement building is still a hell of a lot better shot than trying to persuade a large portion of the population to voluntarily live on $5,000 per year.
> Suppose we just all cut way back on work and spent money only for
> necessities? It's possible that we could starve the owners of
> capital into submission.
>
> I'm trying to do my part. Back in 87, we got our mortgage paid off in
> 7 years (mortgaged much less than we could afford), and am now living
> on $5000 income a year doing part time teaching on contract at a
> community college, getting my son thru college as a single parent,
> still supporting my most important vices, such as internet and DSL,
> trying to muddle thru 12 more years til I can retire. I don't see
> where I've sacrificed or suffered at all, though I do want to get
> health insurance. I can smile as I fill out my 1040, watching my
> zero Federal withholdings turn into an Earned Income Credit refund
> that might just pay most of a medical insurance policy. I used to be
> proud to pay income tax. Not any more.
>
> >As you wer told by another
> >poster, it is fundamentally a class issue.
>
> Well, if net worth or income is any measure, I'm near the bottom and I
> intend to stay there as long as I can.
>
> >And the approach you
> >outlines actually helps to speed the degradation of this planets
> >suitability for human habitation, because it reduces the odds of
> >winning.
>
> Winning what? The "right" to consume more than I need? No thanks.
> Reining in the corporate/political/financial machine? I'm in. I see
> no way that reducing consumption can do anything but cause less hurt
> for the beings on this planet. If we don't need fossil fuel, or
> sweatshop labor, or beef or trees from rainforest land, or uranium,
> or any other plundering, we may prevent our demise. We may even
> eventually learn to become spiritually in tune with our place among
> other beings here and on this living planet. This seems to me to be
> the most win-win possibility we have.
>
> >Look at it this way; if 20% if the U.S. population did everything
> > they could as individuals to live sustanably, you see an
> > improvement, maybe even better than a 20% improvement, but you
> > would not reach the minimal sustainability needed to maintain a
> > technological
> >civilization. If you could get 20% of the population to strongly
> >support a politcal movement, that would probably be enough to win
> > the changes to turn the nation around. I'm not saying either is
> > easy. But political action offers a lot more possibility of success
> > than lifestyle changes.
>
> I hate to say it, but I think our chances for political action are
> about dead. Our politicians are creating a fascist nation bent on
> controlling the world. There are too many greedy rich people at the
> top controlling everything (including the voting apparatus) to allow
> it to have any meaning any more. The media spin is too good and it
> is controlled by the same powerful elite. So many people are too
> busy to take the time to learn any important current events and
> history, and only watch the news for weather, sports, or sensational
> stories.
>
> We liberals have steadily lost ground since Carter left office.
> Clinton was no liberal. Clinton followed the same exact Zionist
> foreign policy as all the rest. All the politicians with very few
> exceptions are on the take. War enriches them while we foot the bill
> with our taxes and blood. How can we possibly hope for political
> solutions when we've reached this point, with no signs of the
> pendulum swinging back to the left? I see that we have no choice but
> to work towards making our own alternatives. Let the aristocracy eat
> gold. I'll expand my victory garden.
>
> >Are lifestyle changes usesless? Hell no. If you are in the position
> >to make such lifestyle changes and demonstrate that you can have a
> >better life than people not doing it, it constittues a kind of
> >propaganda ;
>
> Yes, it does. When one person can show success in simpifying, it
> inspires 10 more. The light can expand ever wider.
>
> >but it makes sense only as part of a larger
> > political movement, and to the extent it does not drain energy
> > from it.
>
> It need not be political. It can't hurt the one who succeeds in
> simplication. They are much more likely to survive when the bottom
> falls out because they may be able to meet their needs on their own
> and they have much less invested to lose. Intentional communities
> are also another direction I see as a powerful force away from the
> status quo.
>
> --tully
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>
-- Please note: Personal messages should be sent to [garlpublic] followed by the [at] sign with isp of [comcast], then [dot] and then an extension of net