Petroleum based agriculture is less than it would be if the organic food industry had never been introduced and accepted. Consumer acceptance of the organic food market is a good example of the power of individual intentional consumption. The organic industry is steadily gaining ground even with all the monkeywrenches thrown in against it by mega-agriculture and politicians.
The power of intentional consumption even has a self-perpetuating effect after a certain point, as investors begin to notice the market and to contribute, leading to more expansion. Even though some gets side-tracked, like Ben & Jerry's, The Body Shop, etc., intentional consumption propelled them to success and have inspired many more socially responsible small businesses. There's even a mainstream investor market now for socially responsible investing. Political solutions didn't create these solutions or do anything to keep them growing. Individual purchasing did.
>><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
Its more than voluntary simplicity. It is also environmentally and socially responsible purchasing. We liberals need to help these directions to succeed and quit expecting politicians to do anything. Politicians will be the last to move in that direction, as to do so is a conflict of interest for them. Hasn't evidence of what we can expect from politicians been abundantly displayed over the last few decades? How much further must it go before we take responsibility for our own behavior that contributes so much to environmental and social problems and quit spending all our energy in the futile action of finger pointing?
>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.
Electric cars have their own set of environmental problems. The ultimate solution is to quit travelling, shipping, and consuming so much. So little is really needed to live comfortable secure lives.
>> 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.
Yet the issue is that political change here in the US is next to impossible to achieve. We're going backwards over here. We're losing ground politically and have been for decades. We must see that we can't continue to rely so solely on political solutions. It simply ain't gonna happen. Its time we bit the bullet and start walking our talk. It starts by recognizing our little parts in contributing to the crimes. Our "Eichman-ness" if you will.
>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,
Cities aren't the answer either as it requires too much shipping to support large cities. The sources of our sustenance must be localized much more. With electronic communications, the need for cities can be reduced. We no longer need to travel as much. This doesn't mean I'm supporting reducing wilderness areas for new development, as I certainly am not. But suburbs and industrial parks can now have their place in distributing populations to allow more localized production. Intentional communities can happen.
>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
Then please explain to me why the organic food and textile industry is growing. Or why increasing numbers are paying extra for green grid. Or why socially responsible investing is in the portfolio.
>Nope you get the solution from social movements which grow big
> enough to force politicans to do what they want.
But we aren't getting anywhere with social movements and haven't for a long time. How much longer can we afford to wait to do something personally to reduce the consumption?
> Trying to "starve the owners of capital into submission"
> will be worse.
Why?
>Here is the bottom line. We have locked a certain amount of global
>warming in already.
Global warming isn't the bottom line. Its only a symptom of the problem. We have many other problems besides global warming. If anything, excess consumption is the bottom line, which contributes to all our problems, including global warming.
> 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.
I'm repeating myself. Why rely on political movement building when it is clear it has not worked? Countless hours of energy have been expended in trying to pursue political solutions over the last 30 years and we are going backwards. We may be working against ourselves by the mere act of polarizing the issues. We must find alternatives and quit relying so completely on something that is not working. We don't have the time to play these games any more. And when too many liberals can be found driving SUVs and living in 2000 sq. ft. homes and not investing in socially responsible markets, we've lost too much credibility. Time to walk our talk. It can't hurt and it just might kick the critical mass in the direction we need. I see no other way to go.
--tully