Woh, that was a hot old night! Hi this is Colin at quarter-to-seven on Friday the 21st. Last night was quite steamy as well, and we didn’t get the thunder showers that they forecast us so it looks as though…

best, Dave (TOD)

To generate electricity from coal is expensive, that is, unless you let the sulfur dioxide, mercury, and ash (let alone CO2) waft out of the chimney and into the lungs of the people you are trying to help (like they are doing in China and in 2/3 of U.S. coal units). It is expensive unless you build a cheap plant that runs at 20% efficiency. Never fear, just haul in more coal using a dirty, oil-burning truck! To be economical, coal-fired plants must be large, and that means big, expensive power lines. It also means that there will be someone in control of A LOT of people’s electricity. That can get hairy in the developing world, which doesn’t always have a “Public Utility Commission” to call when the power company fails to deliver.

Some seem to think that solar/wind can’t produce enough power. For one thing, these people don’t need 14 megawatt-hours of electricity per person, per year.

I think you skepticism of an magical elixer is a healthy one, although the idea of permaculture as “just another fantasy about how technology will save us” is well off the mark.

permaculture is about using existing resources as productively as possible in a way which enhances the environmental carrying capacity. it does this through simple functional design inspired by nature — to find ways where humans can become a useful part of designed ecosystems. this of course involves lifestyle changes.

that is a long way from a technofix solution!

i would like to see yeoman’s references that said.

Adam

The Economists’ assumptions also rely on a lot of far-fetched ideas. They for one assume that the eocnomic costs of global warming will be linear and in proportion to longer summers. It’s not a simple matter of turning up the AC. If, for example, Greenland’s ice reserves melt (which, BTW, they are), that would result in a massive deposit of cold fresh water into the Atlantic, stopping the ocean’s “conveyor belt” that brings Europe its warm weather. I’d like to see some estimates on the economic costs of a European mini-ice-age.

The great bread bowl of the United States — the midwest — is vulnerable. In particular, the western United States do not get very much natural rain. To irrigate the vast fields of farmland, water is redirected great distances from the snowmelt of the Rocky Mountains. Here in Colorado, we’ve been getting progressively less snow each year. What used to be uncommon — summer-time water restrictions — are regular end expected.

Farmers right now in Weld County, Colorado are facing difficult choices because the aquifer they normally use to water their crops is running very low this year. To cooporate with existing water-rights rules, the wells have been cut off and crops are dying. This is happening right now, this summer, and it’s only going to get worse.

We still have a lot of flexability and waste to minimize, of course. Subdivisions are still installed with Kentucky Bluegrass — a non-native plant that requires massive amounts of water. The new homeowners come in, the water restrictions hit around the end of July, and they watch their lawns die. There are far more reasonable native plants that don’t require any watering, but some cities (Highlands Ranch) actually go so far as banning sustainable plants in front lawns.

What is the source for Yeoman’s claim that “the loss of humus from agricultural soils is as large a contibutor to greenhouse gas emissions as motor cars, …”? According to The Woods Hole Research Center land use changes (which includes the burning of trees as well as loss of humus) only accounts for about %25 of the increase in atmospheric CO2 concentrations. That’s still a lot of carbon and should be curbed, but Yeoman’s appears to be overstating the case.