|
NOTE: Find out about an important, first-time conference tracing the World Problematique and the sustainability and community solution for these problems. Come May 30 to June 1 to Grand Rapids, Michigan. Costs have been held down; and international presenters and a broad panel of other presenters, as well as a great chance to network with others, will make this a worthwhile and unique event. Come experience the beautiful setting and intense discussion about the direction we should set for the next 100 years!
There is a debate going on about how severe the coming environmental, energy, and population crunch is. How intense and rapid will be problems that arise from global warming, climate change, oil and natural gas availability declines, and depletion of resources such as clean fresh (drinking / farming) water, food, and arable land?
Let me give two contrasting views that are pretty typical of the two groups, although I have not seen these predictions codified in a simple manner such as I use here for argument's sake: are things going to get worse only gradually in the next 100 years, or rather rapidly, in the next 10 or 15 years.
The criteria used for measurement could be a count of the number of countries whose governments are toppled by food riots, or the total amount of previously-dry land surface covered by rising oceans, or the number of people who must travel over a certain distance to get clean water . But I want to add one more point to this discussion in order to bridge that divide, something that has been discussed here and there but that is not consistently integrated into the environmental discussions.
If there was, say, a 10% risk that your car would explode (for reasons we could talk about elsewhere) the next time you got into it, would you say "Aw heck, that is not THAT risky" or would you look for a different car, or maybe even walk if practical? Well, in our case, the best scientific minds have already announced in the IPCC more than 90% chance that we are in deep trouble. And we do have another "car" available - that is, use of renewable energy, improved conservation, and reduced consumption. These and other measures are all available now, and would improve life anyway after passing through some transitional awkwardness.
It seems to me that transitional awkwardness is preferable to being blown up by a car bomb. And let it be clear: I make these points not to scare people but because the people of the world need to get our respective local, provincial, and national governments to move as quickly as possible on these matters, as well as forming local community action groups that organize for local food supplies, short-distance work, trade of goods and services, and so on. Awareness by a sizable portion of the world's public is needed before action on a wide scale will result. And that awareness needs to include some understanding of the risks vs the benefits of the various kinds of action or inaction that can be chosen.
The questions remaining in my mind focus down to this: will we do enough about it quickly enough, and if not, why not. And, what can I do about it?
|
Fossil Fuel
