[Terrapreta] Fw: a tiny outburst of common sense

[lou gold]

Yes, 25x25 is a good example of how some states and municipalities  are
moving forward despite a stalemated federal government that is mostly
captive of lobbyists who has institutionalized access to Congress.

Of course I like the drift of your "Pay It Forward" phrase but it is not
likely to travel well in a society addicted to "Pay It Later" consumer
credit. Thus, I prefer the phrase "Invest Now" which limits the sense of a
burden to pay, replacing it with a sense of future opportunity. I think that
in all our messaging we need to stress that we are not talking about guilt,
or reparations, or penalties but, instead , about a better and more abundant
way.

hugs,

lou

On Dec 17, 2007 12:37 PM, Sean K. Barry <sean.barry at juno.com> wrote:

>  Hi Lou,
>
> The Minnesota state legislature was the first in the nation to enact a
> Global Climate Change Mitigation strategy into law. It is called "25 by 25"
> (25% reduction by 2025) bill.  It does exactly what you propose.  It
> requires the electric utility Exel Energy, to replace 25% of their electric
> generating capacity with wind and other renewables by the year 2025.  It is
> the first law of its kind and it is being accomplished ahead of schedule.
> My belief is that the ball needs to keep rolling and even faster after 2025.
>
> There is a phrase I thought of later yesterday ... "Pay It Forward" ... It
> was the title of a movie about soccer , I think , too.  But the idea to me
> seems that we need to change  from operating to get what we need now into
> more one of getting for futture generations what they will need then.  We
> have to live now only to sustain livability for others after us.  This is
> very different than live and let live, to each his own, every man for
> himself, and capitalistic markets, etc.  It is more like realizing that its
> pay back time.  We cannot any longer sustain the resource extraction and
> ignore the waste paradigm.  We need to think about sustaining people, people
> in other places and at later times.
>
> We have to pay our abundance forward.
>
> Regards,
>
> SKB
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> *From:* lou gold <lou.gold at gmail.com>
> *To:* Sean K. Barry <sean.barry at juno.com>
> *Cc:* David Yarrow <dyarrow at nycap.rr.com> ; terrapreta<terrapreta at bioenergylists.org>
> *Sent:* Monday, December 17, 2007 4:13 AM
> *Subject:* Re: [Terrapreta] Fw: a tiny outburst of common sense
>
> Yep, and politics has its ways to distort all the logic and market forces.
> For example, the most recent US energy bill avoided two opportunities to
> guide business as usual into new directions.  One would have required
> utilities to generate an increasing share of their power from renewable
> sources like wind. The other would have rolled back about $12 billion in tax
> breaks granted to the oil companies in the last energy bill and used the
> proceeds to help develop cleaner fuels and new energy technologies.
>
> That's politics as usual. But, I believe there's an even deeper "logic" at
> work: the industrial age paradigm generates both profits and progress from
> resource extraction and disregard for waste. It approaches limits through
> depletions and pollutions. It generates a zero-sum politics of scarcity.
> Viewed from the perspective of the earth, the human race is a vast
> collection of "haves" and "have-nots" in a process of taking and wasting and
> fighting for the spoils. This is the field on which business-as-usual plays.
> The rich get richer, and so on....
>
> I keep thinking that there is another logic deeply embedded in the terra
> preta model. Rather than a one-way taking from the earth by the human race,
> it presents the possibility of reciprocities that have not been part of the
> previous industrial paradigm. In essence, it shows a view from the earth
> which says that by capturing and converting waste into soil, we the human
> race may enter a process of giving and using. This, in turn, presents a
> potential for moving us from exhaustion toward abundance and generates a new
> playing field for business-as-usual. It suggests the possibility of truly
> sustainable abundance and a system in which all get richer.
>
> Respectfully, I would like to suggest that this is a revolutionary shift
> -- a sea change -- that requires a leap of faith from familiar notions of
> scarcity into off-our-present-map novel notions of abundance. It may turn
> out that consciousness-as-usual is as much or even more of an obstacle than
> business-as-usual.
>
> We have quite a song to sing. Let's do it.
>
> OK, that's my-your-our dream.
>
> hugs,
>
> lou
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Dec 16, 2007 10:48 PM, Sean K. Barry < sean.barry at juno.com> wrote:
>
> >  Hi David,
> >
> > I just read something called "Jevons Paradox".  Duane Pendergast
> > referred me to it.  It is related to a "logical fallacy", called "affirming
> > the consequent", and I think, an incorrect working the modus tollens or
> > modus ponens rule?
> >
> > The applicable "fallacy" in the article you referred points out that you
> > cannot rely on conservation of use of fossil fuels to lower fossil fuel
> > consumption.  Reducing the demand (conservation or raising the efficiencies)
> > will lower prices temporarily, but eventually will result in increased
> > demand again.  If we conserve, then carbon demand and consumption will not
> > go up?  ... doesn't work.  That dog don't hunt.  That is a weak induction
> > argument.  The market forces will drive an increase in total demand for
> > fossil fuels.  It is a powerful mechanism that has built most of all the
> > world wide monopolies.
> >
> > The only logical method applicable, is a correct use of "inference",
> > when A => B, says not A means not B and also not B means not A.  The way to
> > use this to stop burning fossil fuels, is not to burn less (conservation),
> > but rather to stop mining and drilling for (supplying) fossil carbon fuels!
> > Or, eliminate the supply altogether and that will definitely lower the total
> > demand and consumption,.  If supply A, then demand B (and consumption),
> > means that without supply => then no demand (and no consumption) in a
> > market.
> >
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox
> >
> > In a world where the demand for energy is intense, crucial, and
> > intensifying, the fossil fuel energy industry is in its hey day.
> > They operate in a vast market, which allows them to promote conservation
> > and at the same time drive up corporate revenues.
> > As for their "renewable energy" objectives, in an open market,
> > replacement of fossil carbon fuel will eliminate the demand and consumption,
> > only if replacement "renewable energy" sources are found at a lower price
> > and can completely replace the "energy" content of the fossil carbon fuels.
> > As long as there are people who can only buy fossil carbon fuels, then
> > suppliers will always be able to sell at just about any price.  If the
> > supply becomes so precious and rare, it will price right into unavailability
> > for all.
> >
> > Without replacement of the "energy" sources, we ALL will not have enough
> > available "energy" resources to live and work as we now do.  Conservation is
> > the "bait" of markets that fossil fuel suppliers are running, along with
> > automobile manufacturers, and politicians who's futures are bent on the
> > "status quo" of open markets acting like open markets.  This is just
> > business.  Business as usual is their moniker.  What would you do, doing so
> > well in business, to consider changing what you are doing?
> >
> > Maybe we should consider creating the business of "Eliminating Fossil
> > Carbon Fuel Consumption", and use the logic of eliminating (or taxing the
> > shit out of) fossil fuel supply, in order to rid the world of noxious carbon
> > dioxide pollution?
> >
> >
> > "The government's climate change policy works like this: extract every
> > last drop of fossil fuel then pray to God that no one uses it."
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > SKB
> >
> >   ----- Original Message -----
> > *From:* David Yarrow <dyarrow at nycap.rr.com>
> > *To:* terrapreta at bioenergylists.org
> > *Sent:* Sunday, December 16, 2007 3:19 PM
> > *Subject:* [Terrapreta] Fw: a tiny outburst of common sense
> >
> > The Technology That Will Save Us from Runaway Climate Change
> >  - George Monbiot
> > http://www.alternet.org/story/70302/
> >
> > David Yarrow
> > "If yer not forest, yer against us."
> > Turtle EyeLand Sanctuary
> > 44 Gilligan Road, East Greenbush, NY 12061
> > dyarrow at nycap.rr.com
> > www.championtrees.org
> > www.OnondagaLakePeaceFestival.org
> > www.citizenre.com/dyarrow/
> > www.farmandfood.org
> > www.SeaAgri.com
> >
> > "Happiness can be found even in the darkest of times,
> > if one only remembers to turn on the light."
> > -Albus Dumbledore
> > _______________________________________________
> > Terrapreta mailing list
> > Terrapreta at bioenergylists.org
> > http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/biochar/
> >
> > http://terrapreta.bioenergylists.org
> > http://info.bioenergylists.org
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Terrapreta mailing list
> > Terrapreta at bioenergylists.org
> > http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/biochar/
> > http://terrapreta.bioenergylists.org
> > http://info.bioenergylists.org
> >
>
>
>
> --
> http://lougold.blogspot.com/
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/visionshare/sets/
>
>


-- 
http://lougold.blogspot.com/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/visionshare/sets/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /attachments/20071217/01d1efc4/attachment.html