More on the environmental apocalypse

I wanted to discuss a little further the article that I mentioned on Sunday and what it means for your personal acts of environmentalism or lifestyle choices (for those of you who don't consider yourselves to be an "environmentalist", but choose living lightly).

As one dear reader stated in response, "I'm not going to be too concerned yet, as I'm not one to succumb to sensationalism." So, when should we be concerned? And, if we "environmentalists", who represent such a tiny fraction of the population aren't concerned yet, what about the rest of the consumptive Americans who don't give a flying fig about it and plan on continuing with their high-impact lifestyles as long as their wallet supports them?

I may bitch and moan incessantly about James Kunstler and his wayward gloom and doom idea of the future, but it's mostly because I believe he's painting a picture of how he really wants society to be: anti-suburbia, anti-commercialism and anti-everything that smacks of modern Americanism. But, if it's rural and homey and self-sufficient then it's okay. I think it's personal cherry picking. But, then again, we are all guilty of that to some extent.

In the comments of Sunday's post I also see that even the doomers are in a sort of denial, believing it won't be that bad or they won't be as affected as is stated in the article. The question then becomes, how do we pick our doom and gloom scenario or do we, as the aforementioned reader wishes, just plug along waiting for something far more obvious and intractable to show us the path?

Let me also suggest that, even under generous calculations, if 10% of the population was willing to take on the Riot for Austerity and cut their emissions by 90% of what the average person in the US consumes, that still leaves a hoarkingly huge 90% of exhaust spewing America to sink our personal efforts. If what we really need is a grand edict, governmental or otherwise, to turn this around, what do the 10% get for selling the car, unplugging the fridge, wiping our butts with cloth toilet paper and line drying our clothes? Just as bleak a future, I presume.

I thought it, unfortunately, fitting that James Lovelock has a very curmudgeonly response regarding eco ideas, ethical consumption, carbon offsetting, recycling and so on:

This is, Lovelock says, a deluded fantasy. Most of the things we have been told to do might make us feel better, but they won't make any difference. Global warming has passed the tipping point, and catastrophe is unstoppable.

"It's just too late for it," he says. "Perhaps if we'd gone along routes like that in 1967, it might have helped. But we don't have time. All these standard green things, like sustainable development, I think these are just words that mean nothing. ...

This is all delivered with an air of benign wonder at the intractable stupidity of people. "I see it with everybody. People just want to go on doing what they're doing. They want business as usual. They say, 'Oh yes, there's going to be a problem up ahead,' but they don't want to change anything."

Lovelock believes global warming is now irreversible, and that nothing can prevent large parts of the planet becoming too hot to inhabit, or sinking underwater, resulting in mass migration, famine and epidemics. ... To Lovelock, the logic is clear. The sustainability brigade are insane to think we can save ourselves by going back to nature; our only chance of survival will come not from less technology, but more.

Finally, what does Lovelock suggest we do instead of the seemingly insignificant attempts at eco-living? "Enjoy life while you can. Because if you're lucky it's going to be 20 years before it hits the fan."

Many other individuals feel that the train has already left the station and there's not much we can do at this point other than plan for the inevitable. If, indeed, making an attempt to reduce consumption and emissions really amounts to assuaging our own guilt, keeping us busy and making us feel we have a purpose regardless of how useful it is, why bother? Should we be enjoying life while we can, regardless of the environmental cost since it, apparently, might not matter?

Would our energies be better spent in learning and teaching others how to prepare for the climate impacts already on the way? We are going to see dramatic impacts to fisheries, forestry, agriculture, power generation, transportation systems (road infrastructure and fuel costs), water quality, public health and emergency services.

I see many people hunkering down, learning how to live sustainably, but are we learning the right things? The 1970s living-off-the-land ideals works fine for our current climate, but will these techniques suffice in a more arid, population-dense world? It seems to me that it would be far more effective to learn about growing food in very small spaces, using crops that require minimal water and energy input with high calorie output, etc.

The idea of growing cattle or large food animals seems rather ridiculous. As the article states, most of humanity will need to adapt to a more vegetarian lifestyle with very small amounts of animal protein. The animals that do get used for food sources will need to be ones that can handle dry areas of desertification on the fringes of population and can subsist on low-quality food sources and require minimal water, much like the crops that we will rely on.

Farming, as we know it in the lower 48, will most likely cease to exist and we will look to, and rely on, methods of crop growing used by people living in the arid areas of the world. The difference is that there will be a much reduced amount of land to work with. So, becoming a nation of farmers is one thing, but that assumes that there is arable land and water to work with. And, well, a nation, for that matter.

One thing I wonder about is, many municipalities are planning on preparing for these sorts of climate changes, yet the findings are generally not "advertised" to the public. Is this to prevent widespread panic? I think if more of these sorts of reports were made obvious to the public, people might do more than just change their light bulbs.

Where am I going with this awfully rambling post? I really don't know, but I'm thinking that a focus on learning what's in store for your area and how to adapt to the climate/geological/political changes in your area are going to be more useful than discussing the merits of line-drying clothes and techniques for how to tan the hides of animals that won't exist in the wild anymore.

What about you? What do you want to do to prepare? Or is this all just too much to ponder or too far into the future to concern yourselves with?