No, we do not. In fact, we can no longer afford to fight over
material supplies -- particularly the ones, like oil, that are going
run out or, like food, be at risk to largely run out due to climate
change effects brought on in large measure by our lust for rich energy
sources.
Sometimes it's rueful to ponder over the way that the present would be different had the U.S. followed Denmark's example on the same timetable while using the funds that were to become allocated to fossil fuel wars towards development of the self-reliant energy security as Thomas Friedman indirectly suggests in "Flush With Energy" in which he states "Unlike America, Denmark, which was so badly hammered by the 1973 Arab oil embargo that it banned all Sunday driving for a while, responded to that crisis in such a sustained, focused and systematic way that today it is energy independent. (And it didn't happen by Danish politicians making their people stupid by telling them the solution was simply more offshore drilling.)" [11]
Meanwhile, there's growing public awareness that the Pentagon's worldwide mission IS to get command over oil and gas supplies -- as is explained in an elucidating report by Rick Rozoff [12] with many outstanding factual details. Likewise, it is obvious that the IMF and WB goals are en simpatico with the mission and, as a result, are on a disastrously wrong track as "The grave ecological destruction sponsored by the World Bank", by Eric De Ruest, HÃ ©lene Baillot, undeniably indicates. [13]
As an aside, the first TV announcements routinely popped up, several weeks ago, to suggest that the U.S. populace ought to pitch in and cut it energy consumption by 3 percent per person. While the objective is admirable, the recommended curtailment is far too small and the diminishment process is starting around twenty OR MORE years too late. Besides, why don't we even go a few steps further and take Walden Bello's advise from "The Virtues of Deglobalization":
"The aim of the deglobalization paradigm is to move beyond the
economics of narrow efficiency, in which the key criterion is the
reduction of unit cost, never mind the social and ecological
destabilization this process brings about. It is to move beyond a
system of economic calculation that, in the words of John Maynard
Keynes, made 'the whole conduct of life"into a paradox of an
accountant's nightmare.' An effective economics, rather, strengthens
social solidarity by subordinating the operations of the market to the
values of equity, justice, and community by enlarging the sphere of
democratic decision making. To use the language of the great Hungarian
thinker Karl Polanyi in his book The Great Transformation,
deglobalization is about 're-embedding' the economy in society, instead
of having society driven by the economy." [14]
In tandem, let's realize, as did Shamus Cooke, that "the industrial basis for an alternative energy superstructure needs to be created. Only by doing this can we seriously address the needs of the planet. Transforming our giant auto plants à ?? many laying idle à ?? into producers of solar panels, windmills, electricityà ??producing buoy's, high-speed trains, electric busses and cars, etc., while massively investing in new research and technology to deal with climate change, is the only realistic way to drastically change direction in the time allotted." [15]
The alternative path to his, of course, is the exact one that we are following. We all know to where it leads -- a 4C (or even) hotter world filled with massive loss of human and other forms of life, ruinous economic consequences, devastating weather patterns, an ocean level rise that puts many coastal regions at risk, massive fresh water shortages, food shortfalls, spreading pestilence and invasive species, and an extremely tenuous future for many generations to come.
Like our ancestors before fossil fuel were discovered, we can live without its benefits. Humankind, throughout our history on this planet, has been able to adapt to widely varying circumstances. Anyone who doubts this to be the case simply needs to compare the way that Inuits live in relation to 67 different uncontacted tribes in Brazil.
In other words, we CAN still adjust to widely varying conditions -- even ones without fossil fuel. However, we, absolutely, cannot prepare to exist in a world that has states outside of the ranges that gave rise to and support of human life. All the same, we -- out of willfulness, wishful thinking or ignorance -- are willing to gamble that we can, it seems.
Perhaps we find it just too hard to give up our current ways of life even though our not doing so ensures that a large portion of the Earth will likely become unable to sustain life towards the end of this century. How tragically demented and selfish of us if, indeed, this is the case!
Of course, our drastically relinquishing fossil fuel use as much as is possible right away is not an easy action to endure. Yet, it can and has to be faced despite that the happening will mean hardship, privation and myriad kinds of losses.
After all, the sorts of difficulties that will exist after we forgo fossil fuel will be minor in comparison to the horrific adversities that would definitely be present if we do not deeply cut our collective carbon footprint in the near future. If anyone thinks that this cutting action is simply too hard to bear, he should for a moment picture the harshness that severe and worsening climate change could bring. Then, it becomes quickly clear about which trouble is doubtlessly preferable.
Emily Spence is an author living in Massachusetts. She has spent many years involved in human rights, environmental and social services efforts.
References
[1] CLIMATE CHANGE: Four Degrees of Devastation - IPS ipsnews.net (http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=48791).
[2] Is It Too Late to Prevent Catastrophic Climate ... (http://www.clivehamilton.net.au/cms/media/documents/articles/rsa_lecture.pdf).
Sometimes it's rueful to ponder over the way that the present would be different had the U.S. followed Denmark's example on the same timetable while using the funds that were to become allocated to fossil fuel wars towards development of the self-reliant energy security as Thomas Friedman indirectly suggests in "Flush With Energy" in which he states "Unlike America, Denmark, which was so badly hammered by the 1973 Arab oil embargo that it banned all Sunday driving for a while, responded to that crisis in such a sustained, focused and systematic way that today it is energy independent. (And it didn't happen by Danish politicians making their people stupid by telling them the solution was simply more offshore drilling.)" [11]
Meanwhile, there's growing public awareness that the Pentagon's worldwide mission IS to get command over oil and gas supplies -- as is explained in an elucidating report by Rick Rozoff [12] with many outstanding factual details. Likewise, it is obvious that the IMF and WB goals are en simpatico with the mission and, as a result, are on a disastrously wrong track as "The grave ecological destruction sponsored by the World Bank", by Eric De Ruest, HÃ ©lene Baillot, undeniably indicates. [13]
As an aside, the first TV announcements routinely popped up, several weeks ago, to suggest that the U.S. populace ought to pitch in and cut it energy consumption by 3 percent per person. While the objective is admirable, the recommended curtailment is far too small and the diminishment process is starting around twenty OR MORE years too late. Besides, why don't we even go a few steps further and take Walden Bello's advise from "The Virtues of Deglobalization":
In tandem, let's realize, as did Shamus Cooke, that "the industrial basis for an alternative energy superstructure needs to be created. Only by doing this can we seriously address the needs of the planet. Transforming our giant auto plants à ?? many laying idle à ?? into producers of solar panels, windmills, electricityà ??producing buoy's, high-speed trains, electric busses and cars, etc., while massively investing in new research and technology to deal with climate change, is the only realistic way to drastically change direction in the time allotted." [15]
The alternative path to his, of course, is the exact one that we are following. We all know to where it leads -- a 4C (or even) hotter world filled with massive loss of human and other forms of life, ruinous economic consequences, devastating weather patterns, an ocean level rise that puts many coastal regions at risk, massive fresh water shortages, food shortfalls, spreading pestilence and invasive species, and an extremely tenuous future for many generations to come.
Like our ancestors before fossil fuel were discovered, we can live without its benefits. Humankind, throughout our history on this planet, has been able to adapt to widely varying circumstances. Anyone who doubts this to be the case simply needs to compare the way that Inuits live in relation to 67 different uncontacted tribes in Brazil.
In other words, we CAN still adjust to widely varying conditions -- even ones without fossil fuel. However, we, absolutely, cannot prepare to exist in a world that has states outside of the ranges that gave rise to and support of human life. All the same, we -- out of willfulness, wishful thinking or ignorance -- are willing to gamble that we can, it seems.
Perhaps we find it just too hard to give up our current ways of life even though our not doing so ensures that a large portion of the Earth will likely become unable to sustain life towards the end of this century. How tragically demented and selfish of us if, indeed, this is the case!
Of course, our drastically relinquishing fossil fuel use as much as is possible right away is not an easy action to endure. Yet, it can and has to be faced despite that the happening will mean hardship, privation and myriad kinds of losses.
After all, the sorts of difficulties that will exist after we forgo fossil fuel will be minor in comparison to the horrific adversities that would definitely be present if we do not deeply cut our collective carbon footprint in the near future. If anyone thinks that this cutting action is simply too hard to bear, he should for a moment picture the harshness that severe and worsening climate change could bring. Then, it becomes quickly clear about which trouble is doubtlessly preferable.
Emily Spence is an author living in Massachusetts. She has spent many years involved in human rights, environmental and social services efforts.
References
[1] CLIMATE CHANGE: Four Degrees of Devastation - IPS ipsnews.net (http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=48791).
[2] Is It Too Late to Prevent Catastrophic Climate ... (http://www.clivehamilton.net.au/cms/media/documents/articles/rsa_lecture.pdf).
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
