Rob Hopkins, founder of the Transition Towns movement, has posted some comments on my recent blog post The Hockey Stick Illusion in which he has challenged the change of course this blog has taken since its inception in 2006. Since Rob is such an influential figure in the environmental movement and he has chosen to bring in such a wide range of issues in a comment thread I feel my response is worthy of a separate post in itself:
Dear Rob
Thanks for your comments and continual engagement with z5 which I know you have been following since it began 5 years ago.
You point out that there has been a dramatic change of direction in my views over the past couple of years, taking the blog far away from its original purpose of promoting peak-oil doom and powerdown/transition strategies.
This is true and now seems as good a time as any to address this in the context of some of the issues that you raise.
However, you seem to forget that change of direction means that I am fully conversant with the views you defend, having been at least as eloquent and vociferous advocate of them as you good self for many years; it is therefore curious that you think you can tell me I don’t know what is really going on in the environmental movement or within Transition: I am in fact as you well know intimately familiar with these positions.
I’m not going to try to give fully referenced responses to every point you bring up- some I have already addressed in other recent blog posts and will continue to do so. Each issue deserves many posts and books and ongoing discussion so I am not in any way suggesting this is the last word on any of it.
You say:
If you believe that “climate change provides the perfect cover for dismantling modern industrial society which is considered to be inherently “unnatural” and just bad and wrong” then it follows that any policy that addresses climate change is seen as a step too far.
You seem extraordinarily unaware of what the actual issues are Rob- I am beginning to suspect you haven’t been paying nearly as much attention to z5 over the past couple of years as you claim 
I would point you towards the work of Bjorn Lomborg on this one. He will introduce you to the concepts of “cost-benefit” analysis, which is the only way to address any environmental issue (compare with your own preference for spurious notions such as “the precautionary principle”- see below). In a nutshell, Lomborg argues that the costs of Kyoto- and worse, the costs of further treaties which are supposed to be an extension of Kyoto- will do more harm than good, while failing to address the climate issue in any case. You crunch the numbers and follow the arguments for yourself- he may have got some of them wrong, but if you think after all these years of promoting Transition as a response to PO and Climate Change that opposing decarbonisation means opposing any attempt to address climate change, you are not even involved with the issue.
Hundreds of activists burning precious fuel flying round the world to endless conferences with only one approach of decarbonisation is clearly going nowhere, as Lomborg explains pretty clearly I think in “Cool It!”. Trying to lay their failure all at the feet of the fossil fuel industry is naive- apart from obvious own-goals such as the 10:10 exploding school children video, the main problem is the dogmatic call for decarbinisation targets. It’s the wrong strategy, it should get itself buried.
Also, it cannot have escaped your notice that many activists are all-to-ready to label anyone who even dares question their views as a “denialist”- not because of the “settled science” but because of their religious/ideological belief that modern lifestyles are wrong. In this case, John Gibbons is fond of quoting Clive Hamilton who is clearly a religious Gaian; Simon Fairlie is another example of religious advocacy – in fact they seem to be everywhere! And yet you defensively claim they are a tiny minority of extremists, with no influence on your good self.
Meanwhile, carbon trading seems to have created a vast opportunity for corruption and selling indulgencies. Enron were big into carbon trading as a central part of their business model,(see here and here) and oil companies like BP are also on the Green bandwagon. Sucking up any subsidies going but achieving nothing.
(It would be remiss of us here to ignore other environmentalists’ boondoggles such as biofuels, possible only a a result of subsidies introduced to placate climate-change activists; why don’t environmentalists make more of a noise about that?)
Indeed from where I stand I see very little happening at a policy level. The commitment is to economic growth first and the low carbon economy third… And indeed, rather than dismantling anything, the emerging low carbon economy in terms of energy is being driven largely by the private sector because it makes economic sense, with governments trying to catch up.
Yes I agree that the private sector is probably more effective at addressing these issues than government- so why not just let them get on with it? If renewables really can take up the slack, then will not market forces- driven by the profit motive- bring them to the fore? It is obvious that Big Oil and Big Coal will be just as happy to make money from wind and solar if that is where the money is- so what do we need treaties for? What do we need activists for? But in the meantime there are good reasons to think that we will be mainly running on fossil energy for a long time yet, and to campaign for forced reductions because of some nebulous idea of climate change sometime in the future seems perverse. Lomborgs’ recommendation is to funnel more resources into new promising technologies now, so that we can wean ourselves off fossil fuels from a position of strength, without destroying the economy and plunging millions into fuel poverty unnecessarily.
Of course, this is not going to work if we have already decided that modern society is doomed and argue, as I did when I started this blog, that there is no possibility of technological breakthroughs and that any such developments would be undesirable anyway because they might increase the human footprint, support a yet bigger population, postpone the inevitable collapse until later. So opposition to shale gas would seem to come under this category- it provides a perfect example of a new technology that might help overcome oil depletion. Your own post on the Gasland film sees it only as a negative- but to check whether your views are ideological or not, ask yourself whether, IF the safety and environmental concerns were addressed and IF it could be shown to be cost-effective without subsidies relative to alternatives, would you then embrace it- bearing in mind that modern society and growth may then be able to continue apace? For the other side of this debate, have a look at Matt Ridley’s report . (Of course I am aware there are bias on both sides- does that mean the neutral position is to condemn out of hand something with such potential?)
The point is, peak-oilers have always maintained that technology cannot help us; now when a promising technology comes along they oppose it for environmental reasons- so which is it?
You say :
“This idea that environmentalists want to dismantle industrial society is outdated and ridiculous I think… some may do…. (Derrick Jensen and others) but not many. I certainly don’t.”
but a quick look at your website and book suggests otherwise:
‘As one man said during a group discussion at the end of a screening of The End of Suburbia that I organised in Clonakilty, “we’ve just seen that the end of the Oil Age will bring about the collapse of industrial society … bring it on!”.’
“We are surrounded by what poet Gary Snyder, in his classic poem For the Children called “The rising hills, the slopes, of statistics” and by individuals telling us that this means the end, that we have gone too far, that it is inevitable that life as we know it will collapse catastrophically and very soon.“
Also this idea that Energy Descent could be more like a party than a protest march, that we will be happier after oil is delusional: coming off oil before there is a suitable replacement will just mean poverty for millions.
And what about your and most of the environmental movement’s attitude towards GE and nuclear? You have told us quite explicitly that your opposition is ideological:
“I don’t have scientific papers to back that up, it is an instinctive revulsion at the very concept.”
I would call on anti-GE activists like yourself and no doubt many other Transition supporters to take responsibility for the harm you may be doing in campaigning against technologies that could really help millions of people.
This view is generally shared by Big Green- Greenpeace, FoE, Soil Association as well as many in permaculture. And many activists do indeed think we would be better off going back to pre-industrial lifestyles, not realising that organics cannot feed the world (or come close) and that no-one wants to be a peasant farmer except for a holiday. How much of this is meant, not for them but for other people- in other words, keeping the poor poor. Let’s make sure that the poor of the world do not follow “western models of development”- yes there are technologies that could help with this- mobile phones allowing developing countries to leap-frog fixed lines with cheaper cell-phones; but if they don’t get access to improved technology in farming they will stay poor. And what about access to the kind of mobility in terms of car and air travel that we have? For us it is a choice; for the poor, international treaties might deny them access to it completely.
Re one-world government: many enviros do of course want this. George Monbiot wrote a book about it some 10 years ago “The Age of Consent”- I was at the book launch in Dublin. I asked a mutual friend of ours who is a prominent climate change/PO activist recently about this, he replied of course we need a one-world government, that’s obvious isnt it? EU leaders like Sarkoczy have also expressed this publicly, so fears about this are not completely crazy Im afraid. If you still support the IPCC and Kyoto-type treaties, then you are promoting moves towards one-world governance whether you have the wit to realise it or not- how else can international agreements on controlling something as ubiquitous as people’ energy use be instigated?
Perhaps you also agree with the spurious conspiracy theorist argument that the entire ‘Green Agenda’ is actually to massively reduce the human population? (check out http://tinyurl.com/69bd6sl for one of the worst-written articles you will see…) which is equally as unrooted in reality.
Your tendency to invoke extreme conspiracy-types does not help your argument. It is an inconvenient truth that the environmental movement has its origins in the eugenics movement; the Club of Rome’s “Limits to Growth”, Paul Ehrlich’s doom-mongering since the early 1970s about over-population, and now the Peak Oil movements’ cries of imminent collapse form the environmentalists legacy which as far as I can see Transition is thoroughly embedded in.
I think there are good reasons to be concerned about the warped ideologies of much of the mainstream Green movement. The Green Agenda does indeed look like a conspiracy theory, but both Al Gore and former under-secretary general of the United Nations Maurice Strong are both Gaia -worshipers who invoke religious sentiments of the planet over the well-being of humans.
In addition, many in the environmental movement, including yourself and the Transition movement are clearly closely aligned with pseudo-science and dangerous mystical beliefs and groups including all manner of quack medicine and Anthroposophy, which you have shown yourself only to willing to defend or play down. The Soil Association which you are closely aligned with promotes both homeopathy for animals and biodynamics. Another of your allies is Prince Charles, surely someone on the far end of whacko-de-lah-lah who nevertheless enjoys considerable influence and power, having flown around the world in a private jet to promote carbon reductions in other people’s lifestyles. The Organics movement as a whole is guilty of taking an ideological stance against genetic engineering, as well as promoting unscientific studies concerning the supposed health benefits of organic food, and exaggerating its capacity to replace so-called “chemical farming”.
In a class I gave in Kinsale last year looking at how to feed a growing population, I was told by some of the students that they would rather let people starve than permit GE crops to be grown, if that was the choice. Would you endorse such a view Rob? If not I would welcome a strong statement to that effect. I don’t think these views are uncommon; more, that most people havn’t though through what their beliefs actually would result in. I personally know at least two people who have seriously told me that the best thing to do would be to wipe out a couple of billion people. These are not right-wing nutters- on the contrary, they are otherwise perfectly normal family people who would support many things you are doing.
Rob, follow the logic of your own beliefs: if you are against new technologies like GE and shale gas on principle (or Thorium reactors or whatever); if you are opposed to industrial agriculture even though this is what is feeding the world; if you think governments and international treaties are the way to control people’s use of fossil fuels; if you still think civilisation is about to “collapse catastrophically and soon”- what does this mean for the billions of people yet to benefit from the modern advances that you or I can take for granted? and can you really still claim that you are not ideologically in opposition to modern industrial society, imbued as it is with the spirit of Ahriman?
There is only one rational conclusion: we continue doing the best thing we know, innovation, trade and adaptation; or we ban new technologies and consign ourselves- or, more likely, others- to poverty. It is only technology, and yes the economic growth that this allows, that can help us through what will indeed be a hugely challenging energy transition.
All I am doing is following a well-worn path already marked out by many moderate and sensible prominent greens like Brand, Lynas, Moore, even Schellenberger and Nordhaus. Even Monbiot has revised his views on nuclear and recently wrote that the “mineral crunch” (including peak oil) has failed to materialize because of our ability to substitute and innovate. Though you have far more invested in the views you hold than I have, having spawned an international movement, you will to the same degree gain kudos and respect by acknowledging past mistakes and taking on a more rational and pragmatic view yourself. Compared to these brave pioneers mentioned above the Transition Movement looks increasingly Luddite and stuck in the retro-romantic past.
Finally, to address your comments about my blogs bye-line of “On the edge between nature and culture”- I actually think it is more relevant than ever. My blog still focuses on environmental issues, gardening and permaculture, and is still concerned primarily with how human culture fits in with the natural world and how we relate to it. And it is still on the edge in terms of exploring new ideas and being open to change.
with best regards
Graham www.zone5.org
I would like to claim credit for this blog’s byline. I put it there when I set up WordPress for Graham six years ago. The capitalisation of ‘nature’ was purely due to a penchant for writing in Camel Caps that I had at the time.
well thanks Tom for being prescient enough to choose a byline that still so aptly describes the focus of this blog over the years, even through significant paradigm shifts… and for all the tech support and general enthusiasm for the blog even when you have had differences of opinion!
Hi Graham, As usual your latest blog has been a very interesting and an informative read. Having attended 2 courses you gave in the last 12 months I must say it has been very enthralled to see the transition of your view point from what i would loosely call a classic “green” to where it is today. A lot of the articles of late have centered around climate change and GM foods and certainly i’d have to agree you raise some valid points, many of which I hadn’t come across before so thank you for that. I’d like to ask you about your views of peak oil, you mentioned shale gas above as a positive and i agreed it could be. I am interested to see if you still believe that peak oil is imminent and/or unavoidable (by imminent i mean 30 years). Do you believe that we need to adapt to a low energy living as soon as possible. Have your views changes on this subject and if so how? Most importantly i’d like to hear about how your solutions to peak oil. Many thanks Conor
Hi Conor thanks for your comment and for sticking with this blog through all the changes! Do I still believe in Peak oil? Excellent question and like so many of these issues requires several blog posts to respond- it’s an ongoing inquiry. In brief for now however, it does seem like peak oil is imminent or possibly past, and that the era of cheap oil is over. However, it seems that there will still be a lot of oil around for a long time to come, and even more gas; and plenty of coal. So peak oil yes, but i dont believe any more that this means peak energy or the end of industrial civilization. As Monbiot has recently commented, we seem to be extraordinarily good at substitution, and we can adapt in many ways through efficiencies etc- there seems to be a lot of slack in the system. In the short to medium term energy prices will remain high although the ongoing recession will probably keep them from going stratospheric- many people will find themselves in energy poverty though. Prices are an extraordinarily good way of telling us what to do- we dont really need a campaign of awareness, things will find their own level, though not without hardship for many. So of course it is always good to find ways of being more efficient and cutting back on a personal level, but the plain fact is we cannot do this effectively to any great degree without sinking into poverty- there is really no easy way to use much less fossil fuels than most of us already do. I am inclined to agree with Lomborg in this article when he says we need to invest much more heavily in R&D than we are currently doing- it may take a generation but ultimately there are good reasons to think that technology will find good alternatives without sending us back to the dark ages. That’s if the doomers and gloomers dont prevent us from pursuing technology for ideological reasons! All the best
I see the capital N in ‘Nature’ here as classical rather than the sort of loopy personification used by Steineristas. So Nature reclines languidly on a mossy bank next to Culture, who holds in her hand an ipad2 on which she reads Zone5.
Prince Whacko-de-lah-lah is seen in the verdant distance pursued by the Hounds of Ernst, whilst on the horizon Hopkins accompanies the eurythmists of Equivocation upon the nose-flute of Destiny.
‘Hopkins accompanies the eurythmists of Equivocation upon the nose-flute of Destiny’.
Fabulous description! Otherwise known by the medical profession as the TQ9′ers.
@Thetis ROLF! I love it- Culture and her ipad2- there are certainly many layers of ironic interpretation for this byline which is why it’s so great!
Excuse me, but although my approach towards climate change is “religious”, that does not mean that I am “all-to-ready to label anyone who even dares question my views as a ‘denialist’.” The religious view I espouse is that whether or not anthropogenic climate change is a scientific fact, it is a necessary myth — necessary to slow down the rate of human resource consumption.
The weaknesses in the global warming scenario exposed by “Climategate” etc lend support to this “religious” interpretation. Why have so many people and governments embraced the global warming scenario so readily? I suggest that it is because deep down we know that our civilization is sick and on a trajectory that leads to something more sinister than the ways of life we are leaving behind, and we are searching for myths to restrain otherwise unbridled capitalist consumption.
Graham. Thanks for the open letter. No-one’s ever written me an ‘open letter’ before! I have certainly found Zone 5 a fascinating, infuriating and enlightening read over the last 5 years. As you know there has been much I haven’t agreed with, but I have also learnt a great deal from your journey. Although we set out from very similar places and have now reached rather different ones, I have followed your journey with great interest, and thanks for sharing it. Your openness to changing your views on things is commendable. I think my concerns which arose from the Hockey Stick post were, in fact, put far better by Arthur, who wrote “I hope this blog maintains an adherence to sceptical inquiry, and doesn’t become led by an unfounded overarching narrative. Or tired contrarianism”. As you know, I have also felt that at times, especially in your writings about the ‘anthroposophical influence on Transition’, what you have accepted as good research has fallen way below the standards you demand from others. You raise lots of points in your post which mean this will be a long response, so apologies to anyone reading this, because it could go on for a while!
You state that you know the green/Transition/environmentalist world inside out and I’m sure that, after so long immersed in many of the things you now deride, you do. But it is worth pointing out the obvious, that the term ‘environmentalist’ covers a very broad church indeed. From the Unabomber to Bill Gates. From Simon Fairlie to Trudy Styler. From Caroline Lucas to Al Gore. From David Bellamy to George Monbiot! It is a far broader church than you give it credit for.
There are environmentalists who are pro-GM, those that are against. Pro-nuclear environmentalists and anti. And so on and so on. I’m sure even Henry Kissinger recycles.Many of the things you raise we have discussed to death in the past, and will probably never agree on. But I did want to respond to some of the points you raise. You write that “if you think opposing decarbonisation means opposing attempts to address climate change you are not even involved with the issue”. We may be getting lost in semantics here, but I must confess this leaves me puzzled. Surely any attempt to address climate change must include decarbonisation?
The term ‘decarbonisation’ surely means reducing the amount of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, unless you use a different definition for the term.Any work that set out to address climate change which didn’t would surely be, to say the least, counterproductive? I agree entirely about the international circuit of speakers flying from conference to conference (as you know I don’t fly for that very reason), and also that carbon trading is a deeply flawed concept. Al Gore has done great work raising awareness about climate change
, but I don’t know anyone in the environmental movement who would see him as a low carbon role model! Just because many of the solutions that the world’s governments and big industry have come up with to respond to climate change are crap, that doesn’t mean that I think taking the carbon out of how we do things is a bad idea.The environmental movement is actually very critical of many of these solutions, such as carbon trading and so on. You ask “why don’t environmentalists make more noise about biofuels?” I think you’ll find they do. Many environmental organisations take a strong position against biofuels.
You ask “what do we need activists for?” if market forces can do everything. Activists are needed to keep these issues in the political arena, to show that it matters, and, when necessary, to put themselves in the way of those especially damaging projects (such as new coal-fired power stations and mountain-top removal). Without activists there would not be a Climate Act in the UK, which commits the government to targets for carbon reduction rather than aspirations and voluntary targets, nor would there be workers rights, the vote for women and much more besides.Having pointed out that you have evolved and moved on in your thinking, you then drag up, rather unfairly, a quote from what must have been the very early days of Transition Culture (“society will collapse catastrophically and very soon”) to suggest that that is still my stance. In the recent debates with Michael Brownlee (http://transitionculture.org/2010/12/06/a-critical-response-to-michael-brownlees-call-for-deep-transition/) you will see that I argue very strongly against that sense of some impending catastrophic collapse. That is not a valid thing to throw into this conversation. I could just as easily dredge up your leading Joanna Macy workshops or talking just as vociferously about collapse.
You try to portray me as ideologically anti-technology because of my opposition to GE.
This is the first of many either/or dichotomies you set up in this piece that I really don’t recognise. You ask if shale gas could be shown to be safe, not polluting groundwater, causing earthquakes, and all the other horrible side effects being experienced by communities across the US (a big if) would I support it. My answer would be no, not because I am opposed to the technology that makes it possible just because it is technology, but because, as a recent report from the IEA shows, the ‘Golden Age of Gas’ that it makes possible would lead to a rise in global temperatures of around 6 degrees (http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2011/06/07/238578/iea-golden-age-of-natural-gas-scenario-warming-climate-change/).
And Mark Lynas, who you refer to glowingly in your piece, has written very eloquently, as you know, about why 6 degrees is something we want to avoid like the plague.It’s not the fact that it’s a technology that I have a problem with (I am after all sat on a train, writing this to you on a computer listening on Mogwai on headphones having just texted home to say the train is late…), it is the impacts that certain technologies, taken to their logical conclusion will have. Solar is a fantastic technology, as are many of the things a low carbon economy will need, but I think it is important to think these things through, as best we can, to their logical conclusion.
You again set up an unnecessary either/or when you say “coming off oil before there is a suitable replacement will just mean poverty for millions”. But there is a suitable replacement, reduced consumption, energy efficiency, and a big push on renewables. A series of studies have shown that this is possible (such as http://iprd.org.uk/?p=6877). And of course there are whole parts of the world where with oil at over $100 a barrel they have already, to all intents and purposes, “come off oil”. If the Peak Oil Task Force are correct (http://peakoiltaskforce.net/download-the-report/2010-peak-oil-report/), and peak oil is 4 years away, then ‘coming off oil’ will happen anyway. You are starting to sound really rather complacent here Graham.
Your accusation that environmentalists want to “make sure the poor of the world do not follow ‘Western models of development’” misses the point. This is the point of ‘Contraction and Convergence’…. for developed nations to reduce their footprint and to meet the developing world coming up to meet them. As a model I haven’t seen that bettered. If by ‘Western model of development’ you mean heavily oil dependent throw-away consumer culture based on the US suburban model, then clearly no, that is not sustainable to be replicated on any scale.
You return to your tired old argument that we’ve done to death about how Transition is wildly into Steiner philosophies and in bed with Anthroposophists. This argument is based on the kind of research-by-Google you would not see as sufficient for anything else. Nick Nakorn’s rubbish piece about Transition and Steiner on his website which I critiqued point by point I note he still hasn’t, 6 months later, actually responded to. Interesting.
In terms of GM, again, we’ve rather done that one to death. You ask if I would let people starve rather than permit GE. A ludicrous question. You present it as a life-or-death situation, that either we have a GE-based industrial agriculture or everyone starves.
Yet, if we were to eat more seasonally, not waste and throw away the 40% of our food that currently meets that fate, eat more fresh and unprocessed food, implement urban agriculture on a big scale, stop the land grabs in the developing world that are throwing huge numbers of farmers off the land and undermining food security, are you so sure that we wouldn’t be able to feed ourselves without GE? If we are able to actually design a more democratic, more resilient food system that is not dependent on industrial pesticides, fertilisers and corporate-controlled seeds then I’d rather go for the alternative every time. I really don’t see GE as making much of a difference one way or the other.<
You say that even George Monbiot has stated that the peak oil ‘mineral crunch’ has failed to materialise. But his article rather missed the point. The IEA’s statement that the peak in conventional oil production had happened in 2006 was not the same as peak oil. As you know, that refers to the peak oil in all oil production, not just conventional oil. So Monbiot was rather jumping the gun there. Of course the question really is whether the unconventional oils will be able to fill the gap created as conventional oil starts depleting rapidly. In terms of other sources, I think the report Richard Heinberg did is excellent on this, setting out the conditions for any energy source actually able to sustain us into the future. Esssential reading I’d say (http://www.postcarbon.org/report/44377-searching-for-a-miracle).
In another attempt to create black and white either/or dichotomies, you write that we either “continue doing the best thing we know, innovate, trade and adaptation, or we ban new technologies and consign ourselves, or more likely other, to poverty”. This is a ridiculous statement. We could also of course continue to innovate in ways that harness the best understandings of science and research but with the focus of using them to design a low carbon society in a way that promotes local resilience, social justice, equity and community ownership, trade where necessary and fair rather than just for its own sake, and of course we will have to adapt, but cuts in carbon now will, it is hoped, reduce the amount of adaptation we will have to do. It’s not innovation, trade or adaptation per se that are the problem, it’s how we do those things, their long term impacts on the biosphere and on human communities.
Finally you state that Transition, to you, looks “increasingly Luddite and stuck in the retro-romantic past”. To you perhaps. But this week, Transition Town Totnes is a finalist in the Ashden Awards, is the subject of a major BBC documentary in September, is working with a range of organisations, is seen by as state-of-the-art for community engagement, have been partly influential in one of the key strands of the Big Lottery Fund’s new funding round being ‘sustainable and resilient communities”, and the concept of ‘localisation as economic development’ is starting to gain a lot of traction as a big idea. Transition Town Lewes just set a national precedent for the first community solar power station. You insult the work of many thousands of dedicated people by looking at their work through your rather distorted lens in a way that bears little relation to reality.
Hi Graham, I come here thanks to a reference on Bishop Hill. I find your arguments excellent and much more in tune with the real environmental issues that have been subverted by the exclusive focus on ‘the Enemy’, Carbon Dioxide. There are many things that could be better in our world, most of them fixable. Examples are clean surface and ground- waters and over-fishing. Instead we find a concerted and expensive political campaign to try and remove the one gas that supports life on the planet, ironic indeed. Your emphasis on the quasi-religious nature of this anti-carbon campaign (itself a misnomer) is supported by guilt arising from the comforts we have achieved in the 2oth century. Despite the poor standards of science produced by the climate community, I have found it difficult to persuade my fellow geologists there is a problem. Our discussions always finish with, “anyway it’s good that we cut back on our waste etc etc, the spin off is worthwhile etc etc”. They have not realised how very large are the sums we are about to pay out to support this daft philosophy. It grieves me to think how such funds could be used to benefit the environment and the poor, instead of vanishing from Ireland to support expenditures by undemocratic countries. The carbon taxes we have started to pay will ruin us all if we genuinely were to achieve an 80% reduction in ‘carbon’ emissions. The worst part is the pure fantasy involved among those who believe we can achieve the unachievable. Your pragmatism is a breath of fresh air, I wish we could see this debate opened out in the media, instead of the reflex branding of skeptics as deniers, or worse.
“Excuse me, but although my approach towards climate change is “religious”, that does not mean that I am “all-to-ready to label anyone who even dares question my views as a ‘denialist’.” “
Nor did I mean to imply that you were, so apologies if that was unclear. However, I do see the “denialist” naming-strategy as a result of this religious stance taken by many. Thankyou for clarifying your position as seeing climate change alarmism as a “necessary myth” very enlightening!
Superb response Rob. Much better than your comment on the previous post. And thanks Graham for continuing to be a contrarian way in advance of your years to help keep us all on our toes
As an interested bystander, and having thought quite hard about why Graham infuriates me so much, what I’d like to see next on Zone5 is some serious political analysis. I have the suspicion that either Graham has not studied the appropriation of power and wealth by global elites or that he does not see it as an issue. If it is the former then I can recommend some reading. If it is the latter then I will remain infuriated.
Many of the problems discussed here could be solved tomorrow if power and wealth were more fairly distributed and used for truly important things (e.g. feeding people rather than providing endless long distance holiday opportunities for the richest 1 billion). And don’t get me started on military spending!
Whilst I am utterly behind investment in R&D for useful modern technologies as a truly wonderful way to continue to improve the lives of humans, I also know that we could achieve so much more if the greedy and powerful had their control on global systems reduced. If the dominant world aspiration espoused by politicians, popstars, footballers and business leaders came to be ‘live simply, keep clothes for as long as possible, don’t travel too much, learn about the world through modern information technology, be happy…’ then things could get very exciting.
The role of corporations, the mass media and governments in promoting the wrong type of growth is absolutely critical to the problems we face. Specific technologies (e.g. GE food) and sticking plasters (e.g. carbon trading) are minor players compared to the global dash for inappropriate growth and the control of power by the few.
Unfortunately there is little appetite for radical political change in countries where it matters. So we will continue to lurch back and forward (helped by technological breakthroughs but hindered by unsustainable economic ideas).
Until the masses become less stupid and vote for change our solutions in the current global framework will continue to be unsatisfactory. I’m not holding my breath for this to happen and am going back out to the garden.
‘Until the masses become less stupid’
I think that kind of statement says it all, TomA, as to why the wretched hoi polloi may be resistant to the charms of initiatives like Transition Towns.
Well there we are. “So please don’t waste my time by side-stepping and trying to pretend these issues don’t exist”. I guess at that point we decide to just leave it. I am glad I spent 2 hours of a train journey that I could have spent looking out of the window trying to respond to your ‘Open Letter’. Not that open then. And you wonder why I don’t take seriously and debate with someone who writes “whilst on the horizon Hopkins accompanies the eurythmists of Equivocation upon the nose-flute of Destiny”. Honestly. Zone 5. The home of respectful debate and discussion.
Simon Failie, you stated, “The religious view I espouse is that whether or not anthropogenic climate change is a scientific fact, it is a necessary myth — necessary to slow down the rate of human resource consumption.”
This, to me, says that the facts alone are not enough for your argument. Though the concept of slowing the rate of resource cunsumption may be valid, the fact that you willing to fabricate a lie to support it make me highly suspicious of the validity and the motives behind anything you may write or say.
Who knows what you state is actually true or just a myth to get people to act in accordance to what you deem necessary ?
The facts must speak for themselves, the raw data must always be made available. You have the right to present your interpretation but all have the right to make theirs too.
Sincerely, Mitch
“And you wonder why I don’t take seriously and debate with someone who writes “whilst on the horizon Hopkins accompanies the eurythmists of Equivocation upon the nose-flute of Destiny”. This is simply more dishonesty and avoidance. Shame! Thetis is waiting to debate you. The comment was clearly in jest and born no doubt of frustration with your refusal to engage with the issues, not the other way around, as anyone can see. Pathetic. Likewise my comment about wasting my time was in response to your spurious claim of the same against me- doubly pathetic.
and I meant to say your attitude of “wastes an enormous amount of everyone’s time having to debate it.” smacks of the most extreme arrogance, viz “we are just so Right and superior, don’t waste our time with your petty criticisms, it is a given in advance they are baseless.” A rather dangerous and paternalistic attitude.
Rob Hopkins -
Only a humourless, pompous and foolish man would write in this way, even from a train. But that would be unkind in this case, you’re on the back-foot.
You were not equipped to argue with the formidable skeptic who writes Improbable Science, or even with the gentler critics who were his guests. You couldn’t substantiate a throw-away remark, that’s why you didn’t comment. We didn’t expect you to. But this is a side-issue: humour’s an easier target than Graham’s arguments, although it’s hard to win a point using such a tactic without making a more amusing comment than your opponent.
Graham – what’s with this ‘response’ stuff embedded in Rob’s comment. Very confusing. The convention is to make your own comment and quote where relevant. Editing Rob’s comment and inserting your own bits makes it hard to follow the timeline.
Tom- apologies I should have inserted the response at time of publishing the comment- I chose to use this method because it was Rob’s response to my Open Letter to him.
Simon Failie: I was interested in the history of the Luddites on the blog you link to, and I agree with the assertion that this history is not well understood.
I think that Mitch’s comment should be repeated:
“Though the concept of slowing the rate of resource consumption may be valid, the fact that you willing to fabricate a lie to support it make me highly suspicious of the validity and the motives behind anything you may write or say.
Who knows what you state is actually true or just a myth to get people to act in accordance to what you deem necessary ?”
And, if such a tactic is deemed necessary, who chooses which lies to tell? Which data stays hidden?
I too, as an interested observer, must beg to differ that GE has no place in a world in transition.
There are many interesting developments occuring with genetic engineering in the fields of medicine and energy.
First, to catagorically ban GE would be to doom those with deadly and/or debilitating genetic diseases to their fates.
Second, there are companies working on GE’ing photosynthetic cyanobacteria to directly secrete ethanol and/or hydrocarbons, thus allowing the harvesting of the desired fuel without having to process the producing biomass involved. If such developments do come to fruition, they have the potential to completely replace oil for our liquid fuel and product feedstock needs while, at the same time, closing the carbon cycle on their use. Ironically, if this comes into being, plastics that are made from this source, but not recycled after use, could be buried for long term carbon sequestering.
Thanks Mitch it is amazing how many environmentalists work overtime to oppose technologies that could be the best chance of resolving some of the worst environmental issues. All that energy and time trying to ban things- couldnt that be put to better use?
You’re welcome, Graham.
But, now i have two questions, one for you and one for Rob Hopkins.
Grahem, i too agree that peak oil , a definite at one point or another, does not necessarily mean peak energy. But don’t you think, given the increasing CO2 levels, and the geologic datasets showing correlation between Co2 levels and global temperatures, that coal would be the wrong choice? In other words, we may have the coal but lack the air to dilute the resultant CO2 sufficently. ( Coal, though, can still serve as a base feedstock for plastics, using gasification techniques)
And, you Rob: How would large scale organic urban farming affect a location such as Manhattan, with it’s current 1,600,000 population on 22 square miles of land? I’ve read that it takes 1.2 acres of farmland to feed one person/year, in the curent US diet. Let’s say the diet was refined so only half the land/person was needed, 0.6 acres, or a support density of 1.6667 people/acre
Given the above, while preserving the current population density of Manhattan Island/per acre (113.634) , and assuming, that the Island would be self sufficient for food, i calculate that only 23127 people could remain on the island ( (226401.6667)/(1 + 1.6667/113.634) )*. The previous also assumes that the housings for these people will maintain the same population density within in the footprints they take up.
Who would you suggest they vote off the Island?
MaxPeople = (LandAreaSupportDensity)/(1 + SupportDensity/PopulationDensity)
If one assumes that the people themselves take up no land (PopulationDensity -> infinite), then the above simplifies to: MaxPeople = LandArea*SupportDensity
It seems the asterisk is consumed for formatting purposes.
( (226401.6667)/(1 + 1.6667/113.634) ) should read ( (22 x 640 x 1.6667)/(1 + 1.6667/113.634) ), noted to:
MaxPeople = (LandArea x SupportDensity)/(1 + SupportDensity/PopulationDensity)
oh, 640 acres = 1 square mile.
Hi Mitch Of course coal has its problems- as do all technologies. My point was just that Peak Oil does not necessarily mean the end of civilization- unless we have implemented policies that prevent the use of other available sources of energy. Which ties in with your other question (I don’t think Rob will be back here for a while…)- you are of course absolutely correct: which is why I try to point out that if Transition /Powerdown strategies were implemented by policy (rather than necessity)- including a switch to organics etc, we are probably consigning large numbers of people to extreme poverty or even precipitating a die-off. Some extreme views advocate human die-off in any case; but it is hard to avoid concluding that such a strategy may not be far away from more general environmental views, if followed to their logical conclusion. In Ireland, we see a lot of renewed interest in growing food etc, no doubt a good thing, but the as you point out, idea that large populations from the cities of the world are going to revert to some agrarian type lifestyle without catastrophic collapse seems naive.
Graham
Just found your website and was at first impressed with the content until I followed this thread. I was shocked at what I felt was a unfair and personal attack on Rob Hopkins.
The issue for me is not just about excessive greenhouse gases in the atmosphere but about the fundamentally destructive nature of our civilisation i.e. growth at any cost. There are plenty of ways to improve the situation and from my point of view anyone, such as yourself and Rob, that is promoting a practical green agenda are to be commended.
Fracking, GE and Nuclear power have too many negative sideaffects and risks attached to them and anybody that can acknowledge these risks and still be willing to go ahead just so we can prolong growth for a few more decades is selfish and shortsighted.
Brian
Mitch
Good question. With regards to urban agriculture and New York, no-one is talking about self-sufficiency here. Urban agriculture has always been, and will always be, complementary to food sourced from the larger agricultural context, but it has huge potential for reducing that dependency. In 1996, the United Nations Development Agency stated that 15-20% of the world’s food is produced by 800 million urban and peri-urban farmers and gardeners. In Kampala, 70% of poultry products are produced within the city. In London, the Mayor’s Office is running the Capital Growth scheme which aims to get 2012 new urban food gardens in place in time for the Olympics and looks set to exceed that target. In Havana, intensive urban market gardens (‘organoponicos’) supply around 70% of fresh vegetables for the city, and until the recent development boom began building all over them, Shanghai’s urban market gardens produced 80% of the city’s fresh vegetables.
A study on the potential of urban agriculture in Detroit identified 9 square miles of empty land within the city limits, and the demolition of abandoned buildings would triple that, land sufficient to produce 75% of the city’s vegetables and 50% of its fruit. This doesn’t take into account the way food is grown. The research conducted by Ecology Action into the ‘biointensive’ system of raised bed cultivation which draws many of its techniques from French and Chinese intensive market gardening has shown that it can produce yields 2-16 times those of intensive agriculture.
It is worth remembering that cities have certain advantages over rural fields; warmer microclimates, access to harvested rainwater, closer to sources of nutrients and so on, and also to a lot more people. The UK’s experience during World War Two is a valuable one. Allotments and gardens produced 10% of the nation’s food at the height of the war. What is vital about that 10% is that it was the fresh produce, the leafy greens and root crops which kept people healthy. Tottenham in London alone has 3000 allotments, and the city of Bristol 15,000.
This also excludes the potential of rooftop farming. Here’s a film of a just-under-an-acre rooftop garden in New York (the city you asked about) which shows the kind of thing that is possible. http://youtu.be/oM2gzf3CVRI. Also the potential of urban beekeeping which, given the assault bees are under in rural areas, looks like the safest place for them.
Urban agriculture will never feed the world on its own, but it could be a very significant aspect of a sustainable food system. The city of San Francisco recently passed an ordnance which recognises urban agriculture as being as valid a form of land use as, say, building or roads. Graham’s tired old straw man that “we are probably consigning large numbers of people to extreme poverty or even precipitating a die-off” if we embrace organics or urban agriculture is patently nonsense. In cities around the world, it is urban agriculture that gives the poor the ability to produce fresh, safe, healthy food for their families. Especially as we see such high levels of migration to cities, urban agriculture makes the difference for those who still have growing skills to have access to a far healthier diet.
To return to your question about New York Mitch, New York is never going to be able to produce all of its own food, but it could certainly produce a substantial amount of its fresh vegetables and fruit, and, I would argue, doing so would have no downsides whatsoever, leading to a greener, more climatically stable, better skilled, more beautiful city with higher levels of food security and more jobs. It is a tried and tested approach, already functioning perfectly well around the world, imperilled only by the predations of the economic growth model which views such sites not as important reservoirs of food security and culture, but as real estate. Unlike Graham’s beloved GE, which in terms of food security is a red herring, urban agriculture is a safe, tried and tested and vital element of a sustainable food system. It is also one owned by the people, which builds and increases community and makes places more resilient.
Thanks for your question.
Absolutely agree that cities could grow a lot more fresh fruit and veg/greens and be better for it- no problem with that, it is one of the core ideas of permaculture and obviously true. Also, it is true that for garden veg organics/bio-intensive can certainly at least match yields for conventional/intensive. (We should be cautious about reports from groups like Ecology Action and the organic movement -there are powerful vested interests here, as we see in the other debate on the IPCC report on renewables; a failure to acknowledge this is the root of many disputes here; claims of 2-16 x the yields of intensive agriculture should be treated with extreme caution- it all depends what you are comparing.) I will always garden and advocate gardening, but we have to remember that when we see figures on yields for home gardening etc this involves WORK- lots of it. Given the choice, many if not most people actually dont want to be required to do such arduous work to survive. This applies just as much to the many small-holders i know around me in west Cork and elsewhere as the urbanite in downtown Manhattan. There is a world of difference of being dependent on the vagaries of weather etc as humanity has always been historically, and being self-sufficient which generally equates to poverty. We want to have the security of the supermarket to fall back on. However, most of our calories come from the main staple crops such as potatoes, wheat, rice, maize; and organics achieves on average around 60% the yield of organics. So Rob’s excellent analysis of urban gardening points more to how essential- and how successful- intensive agriculture is, not how we might do without it. On the contrary, it is th mindless ideological opposition to technology such as GE that is a red herring: -GE will never bee applied to most garden vegetables, because of the cost of development, and partly for the reason Rob gives, that it is unnecessary for the home gardener; -GE can (and does) simply mean higher quality seed; while this is connected to farming techniques, because traits can be selected for eg drought tolerance etc, but essentially it is just a type of seed. Rejecting means deliberately rejecting a higher quality seed, that’s all. -GE is not percieved as necessary by the rich well-fed European who has little awareness of living with the threat of famine; this is a point that should be reiterated constantly. But because of threatened trade embargoes instigated from Europe by Big Green on Africa, this promising technology has been denied people who might really need it- people who are hungry because all they have is the natural, low-impact, organic, traditional- but low-yielding methods practiced there. See Paalberg Starved for Science. None of us would be well-fed without technology in agriculture, whether that be poly- tunnels or advanced plant breeding; those who dogmatically oppose any specific technology that could benefit the poor have a huge weight of responsibility on their shoulders. We have to look for ways to feed a growing population; that will certainly require more, not less, technology. Europe has been left behind by the rest of the world who are embracing GE for the benefits it brings- farmers are not stupid. But Europe has forced Africa to follow, largely because of the scare-mongering lies put out by the organic movement (which drives the anti-GE lobby) to protect market share. Green Man in Africa has a lot to answer for.
Thanks Graham. You write “I will always garden and advocate gardening, but we have to remember that when we see figures on yields for home gardening etc this involves WORK- lots of it. Given the choice, many if not most people actually dont want to be required to do such arduous work to survive”. Yet a survey by B&Q found that 37% of adults will be growing some of their food this year. Interest in growing food is huge and growing rather than declining. If you look at something like SPIN farming (http://www.spinfarming.com/) you get a sense of the small step it is from allotments and community gardens to commercially viable intensive food production in urban spaces. As youth unemployment rises (50% now in Spain and Greece), urban agriculture provides new growers with sheltered sites, close to markets and a potentially cool and rather funky career. The size of plots means that the kind of ‘smallholder fatigue’ you talk about is less of a danger. The identification of urban agriculture as a key element of the regeneration of cities like Detroit is not based on the idea that growing food is a lonely, miserable occupation but rather that it is the growth area of the future. Is it really more miserable and lonely than working in a call centre, or in a warehouse? Also, to describe ‘Ecology Action’ as a “vested interest” is a bit rich, they are a very small NGO doing research which is largely unfunded and have been doing so for 40 years. I think their work is extremely valuable and there is much we can learn from it.
Also, you once again set up one of your ‘either-or’s when you write “being self-sufficient which generally equates to poverty”… I have never mentioned self-sufficiency, nor does anyone who writes about organics/urban agriculture/all the other related ideas you now deride. There has always been trade and there always will be. There will always be shops, no-one is arguing that everyone should be self-sufficient and we can do away with shops, supermarkets or otherwise. What I am talking about is resilience, is about communities meeting a good part of their seasonal food needs where possible, and that rather than equating to poverty, that would actually lead to more work, more money cycling locally, more viable livelihoods for local farmers. People want shops, of course, as part of that, but I would argue that supermarkets, especially the Tescos of this world, undermine food security and resilience rather than build it, to create a Tescos or self-sufficiency/poverty is an argument I have never heard anyone make, and is certainly not the point I have been making above.
Bit of a spectacular own goal quoting “research” from “Ecology Action”- GROW BIOINTENSIVE (TM) is of course based on the teachings of one Rudolph Steiner- an “Austrian genius” according to Jeavins in his book – the “Bio-” in Biointensive is from Biodynamics, Steiner’s loopy system of farming based on astrology.
Now, apart from Jeavons’ praise of Steiner and a few pages on moon-planting, there is not much mention of BD in Jeavon’s book, but he is clearly based firmly in Steiner’s philosophy of “chemical farming bad, organics/bio-dynamic good”- Steiner was of course one of the main initiators of organic farming, but this was merely one of many aspects of his “spiritual science’- a religion which at its core contains the idea of karma and racist mysticism. And on the Ecology Action website we find here:
This is religion- no science here. No credibility.
There is no indication of anything from Ecology Action that approximates a verifiable scientific study. Have a look at the “broccoli test“- a study done in 1973-4, nearly 40 years ago- tells us nothing about the relative methods of organic, bio-intensive or “chemical” farming- all it tells us is which method of soil preparation was more successful.
The photo is completely misleading, giving a totally false impression to the credulous about farming. This is not knowledge at all. There is nothing inherently “bad” about using synthetic fertiliser- this is a complete myth propagated by the biodynamic/organic industry. Essentially, there is good farming and bad farming techniques, that’s it. Deep tilling is successfully used where appropriate in all systems- there is nothing really unique about GROW BIOINTENSIVE (TM) – it is woo, and most likely Anthroposophical even if not explicitly so (just as apparently some new “eco-schools” in Britain are Anthroposophical even though they claim not to be.)
I’m not saying Bio-intensive methods are useless, Jeavons’ book is mainly a grand gardening book as far as it goes, although all that digging might not suit everyone (and the trend these days both in conventional and organic is towards no-till of course.)
So we really should be extremely careful about unverified reports from special interest groups which are associated with corrupt sects like Anthroposophy; and for you to quote their “studies” here uncritically rather undermines everything else you are saying. And gives further evidence, provided by yourself again, for the connections between Transition and Anthropospohy as well. But even if higher yields are obtainable on small scales for organic methods, that does not invalidate any of the points I have made.
“Also, you once again set up one of your ‘either-or’s when you write “being self-sufficient which generally equates to poverty”… I have never mentioned self-sufficiency, nor does anyone who writes about organics/urban agriculture/all the other related ideas you now deride.”
On the contrary, I do not deride any specific methods, while you do deride industrial and GE methods; I merely say that it is unrealistic- romantic perhaps- cultish even- to think we can do without all the technology in farming we can get. I am not opposed to any methods of good farming; you are, apparently for religious reasons.
Anyone interested in learning more about real scientific comparisons of different methods will be interested in the Skepteco podcasts.
Interesting. It’s about 15 years since I read ‘How to grow more vegetables than you ever thought possible on less land than you can imagine’, the key book on biointensive growing. I use many of the techniques it contains in my garden (the deep digging, the addition of good compost, the starting of seeds in modules, the triangular plantings), but I don’t use the more woo stuff like planting with the moon etc. I hadn’t clocked the biodynamics influence, thanks for pointing that out. Biointensive is a merging of biodynamics and French or Chinese intensive growing, and the techniques I take from it are the French/Chinese intensive ones, which are practical and eminently sensible (and yes, it is possible to do that). In my experience they work perfectly well without the other stuff. In terms of yields, my experience of it has been that it works really well, and I’ll have a scout about for more up to date research on their yields. Using tight plantings, deep digging etc certainly doesn’t require a sharing of the belief that Steiner was a ‘genius’, he was clearly a nutcase. “And gives further evidence, provided by yourself again, for the connections between Transition and Anthropospohy as well”. Yawn. Really Graham you do yourself no credit here…
Rob – it seems clear that Rudolf Steiner was too high functioning to be a nutcase, though I’ve always liked David Colquhoun’s description of him as a ‘mystic barmpot for whom for whom nothing whatsoever seems to strain credulity’. Here it is in context in his glossary of magical medicine: http://jackofkent.blogspot.com/2009/05/david-colquhouns-glossary-of-magical.html
Much as we would like not to take Steiner seriously, and forget all about him and Steiner schools and biodynamic agriculture and the anthroposophical influence on environmental initiatives, so popular are his ideas still amongst certain people it seems unwise to put him entirely to one side. But knowing that your opinion of anthroposophy and thus of anthroposophical organisations is as sceptical as ours is good news.
Rob- Im glad to hear you disown Steiner as a nutcase but it is not a little worrying that the whole basis of your- and that of the organic movements’ – philosophy may be based on completely false understanding of yields etc. What if your understanding of the realistic potential of renewable energy is equally flawed?
You know you don’t always have to have the last word in every conversation Graham! Have a great holiday, I hope the summer has saved some sun for you. Take care…
Hello Rob and thanks for answer and sorry for taking so long to get back. I do have my day job.
I think though that urban farming in cities such as NYC and London, where the population density (PD) is high, will be extremely limited, even if viable roofs such as that video from Queens, NY ( i recognize the view) are utilized, at least for a couple of reasons.
1) Such roofs, at least in NYC, are not all that prevalent (nearly an acre big and only a few stories high).
2) Most roofs that are flat have never been designed to carry the increased loading of 8 to 12 inches of soil plus water that it would contain. Plus the water sitting in the soil will create a hydrostatic pressure against the roof, promoting leakage. To retrofit such roofs would be quite expensive.
3) Such roofs pressed into service would need freight elevator service, unless the cutivated part remains small.
As far as utilizing unused land, there’s precious little left of it left in NYC, with the possible exception of southwestern parts of Staten Island. Parks and wildlife areas would probably remain as such. As a former New Yorker, i can attest that you’ll find great resistance to converting iconic areas of Central Park over to farming. To convert them over to farming would to take away the common recreation areas of the city.
The other option would be to tear down buildings to open up land. Unfortunately, other than just cost, there are downsides to this.
1) The previous equation still holds, you’ll only feed 1.667 people more for every 50 to 100+ you’ll displace.
2) As people are displaced, the overall PD falls. This will make most of those people travel farther afield for their jobs. Also, as the PD falls, mass transit routes will have to be lengthened and multiplied, while at the same time, each transit route will exerience decreased ridership. There will simply be less people within walking distance of any entry point A and less, within walking distance, destinations at any other exit point B.
In cities such as Beijing, Havana and Detroit, the PD is much lower, lower than that of many suburbs. So, in those places, you have a lot more land that could be pressed into service without affecting the present PD and present transit services. However, you may then preclude any condensing of population in those cities that would then promote greater mass transit and its efficiences.
So for high PD cities such as NYC and London, i don’t think urban farming would make much of a dent in either food supply or climate stability nor for the creation of all that many jobs. But, for places like Detroit, where the choice maybe farming or nothing at all in relatively large tracks of land, you may have a point.
By the way, what skills are you talking about when you mentioned, “reskilling”. Also, i was wondering, when one talks about powering down to a lower energy use level, what level are we talking about, or aiming for ?
Graham,
You make some excellent points about elements of the environmental movement’s willingness to embrace ideological – and often irrational – viewpoints on this blog.
I agree that the apparent antipathy towards technology on the part of many environmentalists is at best naïve, often highly hypocritical and at worst unethical and potentially dangerous.
It alarms me when I read articles & am party to conversations in permaculture circles about how people think that homeopathy, dowsing, biodynamics and other irrational and unscientific systems & methods are somehow perfectly aligned with – and should be integrated into – permaculture.
However, I’m also concerned that the tone of posts like this (it came across to me as simply bating Rob Hopkins in places) risks undermining your argument. I for one would be much more keen to support your views if they were presented in a less personally confrontational way. Furthermore, this pattern of you and Rob picking over each others’ statements and becoming increasingly entrenched strikes me as something of a spiral of erosion.
As a permaculture designer, I’m interested in how we might move beyond this skeptics-versus-environmentalists narrative, and start exploring how to integrate healthy skepticism and rational thinking into the permaculture community – and the wider environmental movement – in a positive, constructive way.
I’d be very interested to hear your – and Rob’s – thoughts in that direction.
@Mitch- sorry for delay in posting your last comment- I was away for several weeks, only just spotted it had come in.
“when one talks about powering down to a lower energy use level, what level are we talking about, or aiming for ?”
Excellent question, and a fundamental one which needs to be addressed before we can make any sensible definitions of what “Transition” might mean.
In classes, I compare the different energy consumption rates in different countries as a starting point- Cuba is a good example because they are often considered to have already had their “peak oil” moment- Cubans on average use about half the energy of Europeans, who use about half that of north Americans. So how many Transitioners in say the UK have managed to cut their energy consumption by 50% voluntarily from the average? What we are really talking about here is poverty- most Cubans will jump at the chance to use more energy (and thereby make their lives easier and increase their standard of living.)
You are quite correct- unless we quantify these things the likelihood is that any efforts to “powerdown” will be cosmetic changes like new light-bulbs- even growing most of your own veg does not make much difference if you still drive a car or use central heating.
@Joe A- you are possibly at an earlier stage on a journey I started some 2 1/2 years ago which has pretty much run its course. I also believed, when I embarked on this journey, that the important thing is to try to call for a more rational approach to both environmentalism and permaculture, get rid of the woo and concentrate on the evidenced-based issues such as climate change and… but actually there isnt much else that is evidenced-based in the green movement, and as you see from my recent posts on climate change, this issue is also hugely influenced by ideology.
Permaculture also is inherently based on an anti-modernist ideology and the presumption that we are in over-shoot and that any further technological developments that might help us solve current problems are rejected out of hand. I have just come back from the US where I found permaculture to be everywhere as full of woo as it is over here. Just as homeopathy is rarely far behind organics, so anti-GE/nuclear and bucolic romanticism are integral to permaculture.
That doesnt mean permaculture doesnt have a lot of good stuff to offer- it does. But I dont hold out much hope that in its current form it can be “reformed”- it would have to be completely re-written, but maybe even that isnt really necessary as at the end of the day there is just “good design” and “bad design”.
There is a new brand of so-called “eco-pragmatists” or New Environmentalists including Mark Lynas, Stewart Brand, Patrick Moore who of course I have been recently influenced by- these are strong voices so there is already a clear path for a “rational environmentalism”- but even here I have doubts, as I think environmentalism per se is really a new secular religion.
As for the tone of the discussion, as explained at the head of the post, this was written in response to Rob’s baiting of me on a previous thread- so I would appreciate it if you at least direct those comments to him as well!! It also seems odd that you imply you might NOT support my views purely on the basis of my “tone” ?!
However, for me this particular debate about Transition is no longer of any great interest- I knew Rob quite well for several years, and have been around Transition enough (and still am indirectly) to know what it is about- it doesnt really serve much purpose to have Rob complain it is unfair of me to quote directly from his website!! I do think though that perhaps both Rob and Transition are perhaps slowly morphing into something much less fundamentalist as time goes on and the Collapse fails to materialize- and that is no bad thing.
This whole exchange here only arose because, while I am clearly stating that I have changed, that I have moved on and here is why, Rob not only refuses to admit where he may have changed, but feels it necessary to attack me as an apostate. Too bad.
More on Jeavons and Bio-intensive gardening- a good critical review of Jeavons can be read here: http://simonsallotment.blogspot.com/2009/03/how-i-garden.html (although this particular blogger is unfortunately anti-GMO). Bio-intensive gardening is just a brand name for gardening with raised beds and double-digging: Jeavons’ book is fine as a basic gardening book, but the claims of his methods being dramatically superior to “ordinary” gardening are essentially a scam/marketing ploy.
Hello Graham and welcome back from your vacation. I’m on vacation too, in Vermont, US this week.
Maybe Rob has a definitive answer to my powerdown level question. I think, though, CFL’s and LED bulbs shouldn’t be dismissed as merely cosmetic even if their absolute savings in energy is relatively little. They do serve as a proof of concept that the less intrusive a change is, the easier it is accepted. The new light bulbs also do cut the energy use by at least 75% over incandescent while sacrificing almost nothing to one’s life style, except, perhaps, having to replace them far less often. If only we can find such drop in replacements for all our energy and carbon problems !
Fortunately there are dropin replacements for some things. If the US went totally hybrid for cars, that could drop US gasoline consumption by about half. If the US required energy star compliant building codes, that could cut average heating and cooling energy usage by more than half. Are those enough? Maybe not but they certainly could get us a good way there and do so with changing lifestyles very little.
I suspect, though, the above will not be enough and some lifestyle changes will have to be made, such as smaller homes, many more apartments, greater use of mass transit and denser cities. But if the population continues to grow unchecked, i’m afraid no system, be it Transition, Permaculture, Star Wars like city planet, Cuban system, etc , however small a resource footprint per capita it may be, will succeed.
Rob, do you have a kilowatt-hours per person per day number in mind?
Thanks, all.
Hello, Graham, Rob, Tom and others, What a discussion! I am trying to work out what to make of it but I do have one thing I want to raise. Graham, Some way back up the page there Tom raised the issue of unequal power dynamics and distribution of resources that do seem to be absent from your discourse. I would be interested to hear a response to Tom’s points.
To reprime the pump as it were I will add my own pennyworth, which is that surely the major issue about all the technologies spoken of here; GE, Tar sands and indeed renewables, is who controls them. I would be far more likely to be open to things like GE were they controlled by organisations accountable to humanity as opposed to the corporations that do tend to have control of them. In my experience a large amount of the opposition to technology is created by the sheer arrogance, ruthlessness, greed and destructiveness of the entities that control this technology. Surely if a gas project or the roll out of GM seeds can only be pushed through by force there is something deeply wrong and many new major fossil fuel projects need this force or the threat of it to continue and I believe there was and still is huge opposition to GE in country’s like India, though I have not kept up to date on this. (I would also question your assertion that people in Africa are crying out for GM seeds. I would have thought in many parts of Africa a cessation of conflict and resource exploitation might have been more on their minds.)
What is a community that lives on and maybe from the land that is needed for these technological projects and takes exception to the disruption of their lives and land to do? They may not be scientists or have access to scientific knowledge, they probably do not have proper access to decision making processes, they may indeed have a spiritual or religious worldview that precludes them allowing their land to be used in this way. Does that mean that their voices and opinions count for nothing and they have to simply get with the programme or get out of the way?
Distribution of power, wealth, resources, access to knowledge and information. These are all vital issues because until they are resolved there will always be violent conflict that prevents communities and humanity as a whole from making best use of our skills and imagination. I would be very interested to hear how these issues fit into your arguments. With kind regards John Baker
Hi John All very good points- but I don’t see that they are particularly relevant to GE. They are basically about much wider issues of social justice etc.. They apply equally as far as I can see to everything- eg. your computer, your car, oil of course, access to housing, and all the things you mention. They are not in any way specifically relevant to GE.By all means campaign for a better world in every way you can, but a propaganda campaign of misinformation and scare-mongering about improved seed varieties is not about social justice IMO, despite what people will claim. For example think about polytunnels: few if any commercial growers in Ireland would be without them, yet these are after all a technology, or a combination of technologies developed for the most part by big corporations who may or may not be engaged in oppressive techniques somewhere down the line. Since oil will be used to make them you could of course take issue with polytunnels in the same way you might take issue with oil companies. So why isn’t there an anti-polytunnel movement? Of course there is an anti-capitalist movement, and some would argue that this is really what the environmental movement is ll about. But it is not specific to GE. So why is there a misinformation scare-mongering campaign against GE technology if the real issue is corporate control?
I think I have made the point already if not here then on previous posts that one argument is that it is precisely because of the perhaps over-zealous regulations that apply to GE crops that has priced everyone out of the markets: many independent universities develop promising traits that they have to scrap because either costs would be way to high to pass regulations or of course, in Europe it is banned. Meanwhile GE continues to spread rapidly in China and India under state sponsorship. You a fan of the Chinese political system John? But at east they are trying to feed their people. Why don’t we ban other corporate-owned goods like computers? Could it be the rich wealthy nations only ban things that they themselves no longer need, such as DDT or feel no current need for like GE crops, but the many many technologies that we do find useful, that enhance our lives in myriad ways, we continue to use while retaining a veneer of hypocritical “anti-capitalism”. GE is benefiting farmers and the environment in many ways. We would actually all still be poor if it were not for the technological improvements the world has seen in the past few generations, and this is true whether you are anti-capitalist or not. The biggest gripe I have with the kind of points you put forward is that they suggest you are more “anti-capitalist” than you are “pro poor”. The truth is, it really hurts for anti-capitalists to have to admit they depend on capitalism for their own comfort in so many ways By all means be anti-capitalist, but don’t campaign for the ban of a technology: that is not a progressive move towards open-source or community ownership or social justice or anything of the kind, it’s just anti-science reactionary hypocrisy. This looks interesting: http://opensource.com/life/10/1/what-if-we-open-sourced-genetic-engineering (H/T Davie) Here is a really good article by Pamela Ronald about the benefits of GE. Dont miss the recent video I just posted of her and Raoul. Please read Paalberg re Africa: it is a complicated world, I don’t really think you are making a serious argument here, and given that what I am suggesting is, GE could really help people grow more food and be more productive, and help bring people out of poverty in a country where millions are hungry, it seems frankly offensive.
I repeat: people are against GE largely because of a powerful and very well-funded anti-GE propaganda movement sponsored by Big Corporate Green in the form of Greenpeace and FoE and Big Organic, and supported by all manner of anti-technology woo-mongers from homeopaths to Steineristas. Strip all that away and you have something which is just technology, no worse than polytunnels and already enormously more beneficial to the poor.
ps I meant to point out if I havn’t already that the first GE patents will expire in 2014 and will be open source in any case after that. Patents in general last I think 20 years only- time enough fr the companies to recoup their enormous investments. Personally, I don’t have in principle anything against that- any more than I object to song writers getting royalties (although in that case the ownership rights dont expire.) The main point is this: corporate ownership or not the poor (and not-so-poor) are benefiting from this and many other technologies. Get your priorities right: helping the poor develop with new technologies is far more important than attacking the rich.
Hello Graham, These are indeed issues of social justice, isn’t that something that as Permaculturists we weave into everything we do? So no they aren’t specifically relevant to GE but they are generally relevant to GE and other technologies, resource extraction, food production, economics and so on. We are talking about GE and technology generally here so…. I am taking issue with the violence with which certain technologies are pushed on the world and I would like to have a discussion on GE and technology generally that takes into account this violence and the dynamics that cause it and looks at what can be done to take this violence out of human relationships thus allowing the best decisions to be made regarding the technology. I consider that the means used to apply the technology and the technology itself are distinct but connected and have to be looked at as such.
I would include GE, fossil fuel extraction, military technology, and many others. I know that I in the rich world have benefitted vastly from technology which is surely all the more reason to call it out on it’s dark side, because it is my dark side too. Yours also perhaps brother, (remember what I said about Naming Demons?)
I have not seen the evidence that convinces me that what you say about Africa and India asking or GM crops is true. I have not seen you making any reference to opposition to GE in the developing world. The story you tell is not the story I am hearing from Central and South America where people working towards food sovereignty are hindered more by dispossession and the theft of their land (often at the hands of GM companies) than the non-availability of GM seeds which they would consider to be desirable.
Were GM tech the saviour that you seem to believe it is, surely issues like access to land and training to work the land, access to any seeds at all, access to clean water, freedom from violence, freedom from pollution would still be more fundamental and the issues to focus on first. GM is a much higher order function and to place so much emphasis on it without taking into account these other factors seems unbalanced to me.
The opensource GM stuff does indeed look interesting and I will not dismiss it before looking further into it but, (the safety or otherwise of the technology aside) do you consider that the manner in which the tech has been pushed on the world up to now does not inspire confidence in it’s proponents and may have something to do with the actions and manners of it’s opponents that you take exception to?
Good night. May all your discussions be journeys towards truth, communication, justice and Love
John- I havent seen you make reference to opposition to GE in the developing world either- other than to claim it exists. However, even if there is such opposition in places, how much of it is due to the iies and scaremongering put out by Big Green? I have pointed to plenty of evidence that GE is being embraced in places- one of the frustrations of writing a blog is that I find myself continually having to repeat myself- you will have to follow and read all the links and references I have pointed to. Clearly farmers are not stupid and it is not credible without evidence to suggest the rapid increase of use of GE technology is occurring by force; again, even if this has happened in cases, it tells us nothing about the benefits or otherwise of the technology. The opposition is primarily from the wealthy western consumer who take the technology that has made their food cheap for granted; there is no “dark side” in making use of technology per se, but it is more than a dark side to prevent the poor from having access to technology they really could benefit from.
Hello again;
I’ve come across this article in the Boston Globe.
http://articles.boston.com/2011-06-16/bostonglobe/29666344_1_greenhouse-gas-carbon-emissions-local-food
Though i think his math is wrong with distance vs density (density would be proportional to the inverse square of distance between people and not just the inverse of the distance. You halve the density and the distance between people grows by the sqrt(2), not 2.) but it still works out in favor of keeping any urban farming that threatens the population density from becoming a reality.
Oh Dear, Oh dear, Oh Dear! What a kerfuffle. Tweedledum and Tweedledee come to mind. I am astonished that you have the time to write this stuff. It doesn’t really help guys. A little bit of humility and less vitriol would help. I would agree with you Graham about the woo-woo stuff in environmentalism and permaculture. However, given human’s infinite capacity for self delusion, I think that it would save blood pressures all round to accept the situation for what it is. I have been teaching permaculture and aspects of sustainable development (whatever that means now) at third level for many years as you know. I came back on to the Transition websites and Zone 5 for an update on the transition process in relation to the collapse of interest in climate change, the apparent non-appearance of peak oil issues and the dire economic situation that many people now find themselves in. No help there then. Actually, your discussion is very Irish. What is important is the integrity of the quarrel, not with finding a solution. I think that I am pretty clear where Rob stands, although I have a feeling that it is all a little before its time, who knows. I have had many enjoyable discussions with you Graham but now I have little idea on what your views might be, and I wonder why you are still teaching the course at Kinsale? I will still recommend your blog to my students as it is valuable to challenge ‘accepted’ views. I am off to do some gardening in my polytunnel. Best wishes
Richard