This post announces the start of the Riot for Austerity - people trying to cut their use of 7 resources to 10% of the American average.
I quite like the intro describing how communities are built when this sort of action is needed. It's a much more hopeful view of the future than most.
Some of the numbers are quite intimidating. 50 gallons of gas per year per person. I don't think we'll meet that one this year based on our commute alone - even though we carpool.
However, I'm feeling good about garbage and consumer goods (though it would be more helpful if this started after Rhinebeck...I may start a petition for wool not to count as a consumer good).
I think I'm going to start doing some tracking and posting of monthly totals.
David Korten's Keynote Presentation Now Online
15 years ago
Are you counting wood as carbon-neutral?
ReplyDeleteI dunno. I was hoping there would be more discussion about it as the Riot progresses.
ReplyDeleteI know the wood we burn isn't really just because it is harvested by chain saw and a good chunk of it is delivered to us by a truck. We're splitting tons of locust by hand, but even that was cut with chain saws by dudes in a really big truck with a funky bucket thing.
What do you think?
I know we could improve by cutting more of our own wood...but to be honest, I didn't give this area much thought yet, as I feel like it would be difficult to make dramatic improvement. In this area I think I'm going to be listening and learning more than talking.
I'll bet you will have a lot more to contribute to the discussion.
...I've been spending the afternoon thinking about how I can get my cats to stop peeing, as most of the weight of our garbage is heavy kitty litter...
ReplyDeleteI have run into the same issue with cat litter. If there is a cat litter I could compost, I would be all over that (the cat crap will be a small ratio to the goat crap).
ReplyDeleteIn terms of the wood, I think the argument revolves around whether or not you are growing the equal amount of biomass that you are burning. Unless you burn pellets, the machinery you use to prep the wood is a small ratio of the CO2 being given off by burning the wood.
If you are an "average American", the energy you use to heat your house (and water) dwarfs the energy you use in cars and airplanes. Which brings me back to my original comments on the Riot for Austerity, that without consideration of individual variances, this thing loses relevancy. I see that relevancy is a secondary goal to awareness in this project, but part of what we hoped this blog would help discuss is relevancy in various anti-consumption practices.
So, I must throw this out: what is the value of the Riot for Austerity, if it is not relevant in terms of conservation? Does it inspire people to make their first CO2 budget calculations? Does it lead to more write-ups in Mother Earth News? Does it teach people habits to control their footprint? Does it lead to more discussions with the older generation about exactly how did they pull this off (during the depression/after WWII/in the old country)? Does it enable environmental extremism, and a subsequent backlash?
I fear the answer to every one of those questions.
There is pine cat litter, which I presume you can compost. Though, I'm sure - like with the pine shavings in our chicken coop - it takes a long time. We used it a few months ago and it correlated with one cat starting to projectile vomit all over the house. She stopped vomiting when we switched back.
ReplyDeleteDo you know of any stats on how much biomass is needed to offset the burning of wood? We have baby locust trees growing by the billion...
Can you explain further "without consideration of individual variances, this thing loses relevancy." ? I think that will help me think about your questions more.
Right now, I'm thinking about it like this: About 7 years ago Bill decided to ban Doritos. There were no plans for this ban other than that Doritos made him feel yucky and he wanted to test his self-control. The ban eventually grew to include fast food, high-fructose corn syrup and trans fats. Now, 90% of the meat I eat is grown/killed by us, a friend or purchased directly from the farmer.
For me, I hope the Riot can spark similar life changes in other areas.
I think our food changes have naturally taken us through a lot of the processes you ask about. We're reading more, talking with more people, trying new old things.
Regarding extremism and a backlash - Though people probably still see me as pushy, I have been cured of the idea of trying to change other people. I think I am actually much more subtle about trying to influence others now than I was in my youth. I've decided to do what I feel is right and I don't care if anyone follows (though they sometimes do). Something I rather like about the Riot is people saying "I don't care what society does...this is what I am going to do.
Though, naturally, the only people taking part in this are people who currently think it's an important thing to do. That's a drawback.
The tough thing with cat litter is that it usually uses some type of disinfectant to curb odor. This is prolly what causes it to take a long time to break down in compost, I am guessing. Did your cat eat it or something? I can see your cat doing that, actually.
ReplyDeleteThe biomass thing is a 1:1 ratio of production vs demand. With a locust forest, I am fairly certain you are in the black (no pun intended), but in terms of your specific question, what are the equations used to calculate, I would have to look them up in my silviculture notes. You have to measure DBH and map crown spacing, I remember that part.
My rant on relevancy centers around the Riot being setup to use rules based on "spend[ing] a year trying to get our emissions down by 90% over the American average." WFT does that mean? Next, WTF does that actually achieve? I guess, I take it for granted that not everyone loves spreadsheets so much that they will take a week of evenings and compute every single CO2 source in their lives. I get that (I guess). But if they did, they could make a rule saying "cut YOUR emissions" by 90%. Its the math that makes me wanna cry. Its not build around a (dare I say it) balanced budget, only "I think I could freak out the most people by saying I only used 50 gallons of gas (in my car) this year" - and if you look at how they are using the statistics, that is actually equivalent to what they using for reason.
In terms of doing it because its fun, makes you feel good, to set an example, thats cool, everyone should do things for those reasons. But then, part of the population owns and uses cigarette boats for those reasons. It is hard to have a knock-down drag out fight over responsible resource usage based on those being the reason to do anything, collectively.
Those are my issues with Riot for Austerity. Not really a good reason to not do it, either. For anyone (anyone? anyone?) who wants to use my CO2 budget spreadsheet as a template, email me.
And for all you freaks landing here cause I used the term "balanced budget" this is about the only economics that are gonna matter in the end, ENERGY ECONOMICS, so go mix your zanax into a shot of absinthe.
These are excellent and well considered points. I get what you are saying about fun and cigarette boats. I often wonder if I am anti-consumption because I hate shopping or if I hate shopping because I'm anti-consumption.
ReplyDeleteI don't know why they set it at 90%. Perhaps as the Riot proceeds they will let us know. There was a bit in the beginning of the blog post that made me think it was actually tied to something, though I'm too lazy to research it In 2007, after the release of the IPCC report, and a number of books drawing attention to climate change, a friend of mine and I were discussing our frustration that no political organization was considering any kind of emissions cuts that even resembled those necessary to limit the damage from climate change. In fact whenever we discussed the 90+% emissions cuts required to give us the best chance of a reasonable stable climate, the immediate reaction was "that's not going to happen!"
Bill mentioned another reason he's skeptical - yeah, we might not be using the electricity, but that just means it's available for someone else for cheaper. Our non-use doesn't mean it won't be used at all.
Though today he was listening to an interview with a peak oil guy who mentioned the importance of psychologically preparing for resource shortages and recommended self-imposed austerity to help get there. So, that is perhaps a personal reason to go for the 10%?
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/guest-post-nate-hagens-were-not-facing-shortage-energy-longage-expectations
Yes, that is a good point, preparing for the changes is one great outcome that could happen from this. All the attention in hobby farming, canning, and "green alternatives" has really seemed to take off. Our expectations are part of the root cause of our inability to make effective progress on conservation.
ReplyDeleteTo Bill's point, it seems the smartest thing we could do is to take any steps available to help drive up the cost of energy, while preparing ourselves for that very change.
If only there were ways to drive up the cost of energy without releasing emmisions. We could, dare I say it, tax it?
Taxing won't help. Taxing energy will not reduce it's overall demand as long as there is a supply, it will only shift demand from the periphery of society to the center. A tax in the US hits poor people. Producers would just pass on the added costs, consumers would pay more for their cheap crap. Poor people would be forced into buying less crap, or crappier crap. The money that is collected as tax from said poor people/middle class people/everyone in the form of higher costs doesn't simply disappear, thus becoming unable to be spent on energy, it is simply redistributed to different areas, that then have more money to spend (on energy and wars and such). The economic balance is simply shifted. This is the fundamental reason that taxes will not help with an energy problem.
ReplyDeletePerhaps we use the money to pay off some national debt. Now China has more money to spend subsidizing cheap energy so their billions of people can also enjoy crappy crap, paid for by my crap sacrifice.
I think that the smartest thing we can do is use it all up as quickly as possible. Lacking that, self imposed austerity does make a lot of sense as an educational and preparedness tool.
I don't see any time or mechanism in the future where energy demand becomes drastically lower than supply.