 Check out the bookstore at IRBS.com |
|
|
|
|||||
|
||||||
From: Arild Jensen (no email)
Date: Sun Apr 08 2007 - 20:43:56 EDT
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rit
> I apologize, in advance for my grimness, but it's hard to hold my
> tongue on this one.............
>
> IMHO, I think we have passed the point of no return in achieving
> our global balance with nature.
> Each and every one of us feels we have a right to have the things that oil
> and chemicals produce. What is the answer? I only wish I knew.
>
> Do you have one?
> Rit
REPLY
I think your pessimism is unjustified and your gloomy perspective excessive.
I have heard similar doom and gloom statements before concerning something
or other that was deemed totally beyond hope and redemption. Now, 20 years
later the pictuer is very different and much better.
I would also argue that your statement "Each and every one of us feels we
have a right. . ." is not 100% true since I have met quite a number of
people who do not feel that way.
Perhaps it is true in your particular corner of the world, but globally, it
isn't a valid a statement.
It certainly is true of many people in the US, one place where I have met
many such people. However it is equally untrue for people elsewhere in the
world.
I belong to a discussion forum composed mostly of engineers and they are
discussing the very issue you have brought up.
Their solutions are as diverse as their backgrounds. Valuable contributions
and innovative ideas have come from Malaysia, China, India, and South
America not to mention Europe and some from North America.
As long as such dialogue, not to mention brain storming takes place without
any prompting, I think there is hope.
AS a first step, we do need to reduce energy consumption per capita. If
voluntary action fails to reduce consumption enough, external forces will
prevail. Either the energy will cost so much only a few can afford it, or
physical force - possibly military - will compel the more selfish people to
curtain their demand for energy consumption.
When less than 10% of the world population uses nealy 90% of the world's
energy resources, the inequity is bound to provoke a forceful reaction.
The nice way to diffuse such a calamity is to mount a public awareness
campaign. This has already started.
Next we need to develop public peer pressure to change for the better.
A good example of this technique is the growing discouragement of smoking
anywhere, anyplace.
Do we mourn the loss of livelihood by tobacco growers and whole salers. No!!
Food production can be very energy intensive. We need to highlight which
foods require the most energy to produce and then discourage excessive
consumption of that food stuff. This need not cause any sort of nutritional
deprivement.
In fact many dieticians and nutritionists would argue it will lead to
healthier lives.
Lifestyle choices - especially recreational activity - also plays a major
role in energy consumption. Some recreational activity represents a
criminal waste of precious resources. Spending a whole week-end, every
week-end racing around a track in high powered cars or motor vehicles is
very energy intensive. Can this really be justified? Don't ban the sport,
simply restrict the amount of fuel that can be used. Its called rationing.
Or impose a ban on using certain fuels. Inventive minds will soon come up
with alternatives.
Do we really need to have so many people commuting for many hours to and
from work each and every day?
What if these people could live and work in closer proximity.
Reduced or eliminated commuting would greatly reduce the amount of fuel
used.
The list of possible alternatives is long and growing.
What is really missing is any real will power to actually do something. (We
have more than enough won't power)
Plus a positive attitude that things can be changed and it will get better.
Arild
___________________________________________________________________________
|| The Live-Aboard List : send a "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" request ||
|| in body of message to: ||
|