Click on the headline (link) for the full text.
Many more articles are available through the Energy Bulletin homepage
Climate crunch heralds the end of the end of history
Anthony Giddens, Guardian
We are on the brink of a revolution: the demise of the fossil-fuel economy. A new deal must jolt us out of orthodox thinking
—
… Today we are facing two global crises in tandem – the economic recession and climate change. Both are deeply worrying, but what is their relationship likely to be?
… I support the idea of a new deal and hope it produces the desired double benefit – and if countries manage to reduce their dependence upon imported oil, it would be a triple benefit. Yet the effect that Freud spoke of should galvanise us to thought and action of a much wider scope.
We are on the brink of a major revolution – the demise of the fossil-fuel economy. Now is the time to think through the implications. On the nitty-gritty side, one major concern has to be jobs. A climate change new deal will create new jobs, its proponents argue. I’m not so sure, if by this they mean net jobs – that is to say, larger numbers than existed before. As more energy is produced from low-carbon sources, and energy efficiency increases, some workers in the fossil fuel industries, like coal mining, will be put out of work. Most forms of technological innovation reduce the need for labour power.
Jobs will be created not so much through renewable technologies themselves, but through the lifestyle changes that coping with climate change and energy security will bring about. The emerging economy will be even more radically post-industrial than the one we have now.
(11 March 2009)
No mention of peak oil – the third global crisis. -BA
Saul Griffith calculates what we need to do to keep the world we evolved in
Adam Browning, Gristmill
When pondering whether we need to invest in energy efficiency, a smart grid, new storage technologies, or transmission to the best renewable energy resource areas, I urge interested parties to first take some time to watch TV. Specifically, this presentation given by Saul Griffith, MacArthur Genius at the Long Now Foundation:
[YOUTUBE of talk at the Long Tomorrow conference – where Dmitry Orlov also spoke]
He calculated what’s needed to, in the eloquent words of James Hansen, keep the world we evolved in. The answer? Cut each individual’s carbon footprint to the bone via serious lifestyle choices. Then, dedicate an area the size of Australia to renewable energy production. And do so in the next 25 years.
It’s not an either/or proposition. We need it all.
Slides available on Griffith’s blog, here.
(8 March 2009)
Top 10 Myths about Sustainability
Michael D. Lemonick, Scientific American
Even advocates for more responsible, environmentally benign ways of life harbor misunderstandings of what “sustainability” is all about
—
When a word becomes so popular you begin hearing it everywhere, in all sorts of marginally related or even unrelated contexts, it means one of two things. Either the word has devolved into a meaningless cliché, or it has real conceptual heft. “Green” (or, even worse, “going green”) falls squarely into the first category. But “sustainable,” which at first conjures up a similarly vague sense of environmental virtue, actually belongs in the second. True, you hear it applied to everything from cars to agriculture to economics. But that’s because the concept of sustainability is at its heart so simple that it legitimately applies to all these areas and more.
Despite its simplicity, however, sustainability is a concept people have a hard time wrapping their minds around. To help, Scientific American Earth 3.0 has consulted with several experts on the topic to find out what kinds of misconceptions they most often encounter. The result is this take on the top 10 myths about sustainability. And after this introduction, it’s clear which myth has to come first….
Myth 1: Nobody knows what sustainability really means.
That’s not even close to being true. By all accounts, the modern sense of the word entered the lexicon in 1987 with the publication of Our Common Future, by the United Nations World Commission on Environment and Development (also known as the Brundtland commission after its chair, Norwegian diplomat Gro Harlem Brundtland). That report defined sustainable development as “development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.” Or, in the words of countless kindergarten teachers, “Don’t take more than your share.”
Note that the definition says nothing about protecting the environment, even though the words “sustainable” and “sustainability” issue mostly from the mouths of environmentalists. That point leads to the second myth….
(9 March 2009)
Also at Newsfood.
