Duration : 0:2:17

[youtube tzJHHo47roQ]

“SHORTAGE OF ENERGY” or “LONGAGE OF PEOPLE”?

By Jay Hanson, August 21, 2007
to discuss the issues raised in this paper http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/th…

Longage is always soluble; a shortage may not be. — Garrett Hardin

There is a crime here that goes beyond denunciation.
There is a sorrow here that weeping cannot symbolize.
There is a failure here that topples all our success. — John Steinbeck

A specter is haunting developed countries, the specter of “peak oil.” If you were born after 1960, you will probably die of violence, starvation or contagious disease. This is because our genetic demand for more-and-more resources, within a physical environment of less-and-less “net energy”[1] available for those resources, will inevitably lead to widespread violence and global nuclear war.

Geologists have calculated that global oil production [2] and North American natural gas production [3] are peaking about now. American coal is expected to peak about 2035.[4] No alternative — even nuclear [5] — has the potential to replace more than a tiny fraction of the power presently generated by fossil fuels.

America was specifically designed by special interests (e.g., General Motors, Firestone and Standard Oil) to require fossil fuel and automobiles [6] to be viable. The exhaustion of fossil fuel will leave many millions of Americans with no access to food or water and facing certain death. For example, ten or more millions of people in Southern California alone will die within a couple of days after drinking their toilet tanks and swimming pools dry.

Since it’s literally impossible to increase global net energy production, the only approaches which can mitigate this problem are national — to either increase national net energy, or reduce national energy demand, or both. The primary goal of American public policy should be to minimize the suffering [7] of as many American citizens as possible by delivering basic “needs”[8] gratis. Unfortunately, our democratic [9] form of government can not direct us to any specific goal because it is “process politics” instead of “systems politics”:
“As the name implies, process politics emphasizes the adequacy and fairness of the rules governing the process of politics. If the process is fair, then, as in a trial conducted according to due process, the outcome is assumed to be just — or at least the best the system can achieve. By contrast, systems politics is concerned primarily with desired outcomes; means are subordinated to predetermined ends.”[10]

Indeed, all measures that our present government takes to mitigate our problems will make them even worse! [11] Since our present government can not direct us to any specific goal, the first step in mitigation must be to invent a new systems politics. In other words, dump our present “special interest” government in favor of a new “common interest” government based on a new set of values:

“In brief, liberal democracy as we know it — that is, our theory or ‘paradigm’ of politics — is doomed by ecological scarcity; we need a completely new political philosophy and set of political institutions. Moreover, it appears that the basic principles of modern industrial civilization are also incompatible with ecological scarcity and that the whole ideology of modernity growing out of the Enlightenment, especially such central tenets as individualism, may no longer be viable.”[12]

The closest example in our experience was the country on a war footing during World War Two when our economy was directed towards the specific goal of winning the war. Moreover, even if the entire economy were directed towards developing renewable energy supplies, it would be a significant challenge to avoid anarchy because energy available for consumer goods could fall to about 30% of demand:
http://www.warsocialism.com/

Duration : 0:2:37

[youtube 4v1VJ4s5MoQ]

You can purchase this documentary on DVD here: http://www.shoppbs.org/product/index.jsp?productId=2638414&cp=&sr=1&kw=rockefellers&origkw=rockefellers&parentPage=search

You can read about the documentary here: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/rockefellers/

Duration : 0:7:59

[youtube BwEkpB4feN0]

Duration : 0:7:1

[youtube U2tOJVTGak4]

“SHORTAGE OF ENERGY” or “LONGAGE OF PEOPLE”?

By Jay Hanson, August 21, 2007
to discuss the issues raised in this paper http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/the_dieoff_QA

Longage is always soluble; a shortage may not be. — Garrett Hardin

There is a crime here that goes beyond denunciation.
There is a sorrow here that weeping cannot symbolize.
There is a failure here that topples all our success. — John Steinbeck

A specter is haunting developed countries, the specter of “peak oil.” If you were born after 1960, you will probably die of violence, starvation or contagious disease. This is because our genetic demand for more-and-more resources, within a physical environment of less-and-less “net energy”[1] available for those resources, will inevitably lead to widespread violence and global nuclear war.

Geologists have calculated that global oil production [2] and North American natural gas production [3] are peaking about now. American coal is expected to peak about 2035.[4] No alternative — even nuclear [5] — has the potential to replace more than a tiny fraction of the power presently generated by fossil fuels.

America was specifically designed by special interests (e.g., General Motors, Firestone and Standard Oil) to require fossil fuel and automobiles [6] to be viable. The exhaustion of fossil fuel will leave many millions of Americans with no access to food or water and facing certain death. For example, ten or more millions of people in Southern California alone will die within a couple of days after drinking their toilet tanks and swimming pools dry.

Since it’s literally impossible to increase global net energy production, the only approaches which can mitigate this problem are national — to either increase national net energy, or reduce national energy demand, or both. The primary goal of American public policy should be to minimize the suffering [7] of as many American citizens as possible by delivering basic “needs”[8] gratis. Unfortunately, our democratic [9] form of government can not direct us to any specific goal because it is “process politics” instead of “systems politics”:
“As the name implies, process politics emphasizes the adequacy and fairness of the rules governing the process of politics. If the process is fair, then, as in a trial conducted according to due process, the outcome is assumed to be just — or at least the best the system can achieve. By contrast, systems politics is concerned primarily with desired outcomes; means are subordinated to predetermined ends.”[10]

Indeed, all measures that our present government takes to mitigate our problems will make them even worse! [11] Since our present government can not direct us to any specific goal, the first step in mitigation must be to invent a new systems politics. In other words, dump our present “special interest” government in favor of a new “common interest” government based on a new set of values:

“In brief, liberal democracy as we know it — that is, our theory or ‘paradigm’ of politics — is doomed by ecological scarcity; we need a completely new political philosophy and set of political institutions. Moreover, it appears that the basic principles of modern industrial civilization are also incompatible with ecological scarcity and that the whole ideology of modernity growing out of the Enlightenment, especially such central tenets as individualism, may no longer be viable.”[12]

The closest example in our experience was the country on a war footing during World War Two when our economy was directed towards the specific goal of winning the war. Moreover, even if the entire economy were directed towards developing renewable energy supplies, it would be a significant challenge to avoid anarchy because energy available for consumer goods could fall to about 30% of demand:
http://www.warsocialism.com/

Duration : 0:6:20

[youtube rK08G79Eb6E]

“SHORTAGE OF ENERGY” or “LONGAGE OF PEOPLE”?

By Jay Hanson, August 21, 2007
to discuss the issues raised in this paper http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/th…

Longage is always soluble; a shortage may not be. — Garrett Hardin

There is a crime here that goes beyond denunciation.
There is a sorrow here that weeping cannot symbolize.
There is a failure here that topples all our success. — John Steinbeck

A specter is haunting developed countries, the specter of “peak oil.” If you were born after 1960, you will probably die of violence, starvation or contagious disease. This is because our genetic demand for more-and-more resources, within a physical environment of less-and-less “net energy”[1] available for those resources, will inevitably lead to widespread violence and global nuclear war.

Geologists have calculated that global oil production [2] and North American natural gas production [3] are peaking about now. American coal is expected to peak about 2035.[4] No alternative — even nuclear [5] — has the potential to replace more than a tiny fraction of the power presently generated by fossil fuels.

America was specifically designed by special interests (e.g., General Motors, Firestone and Standard Oil) to require fossil fuel and automobiles [6] to be viable. The exhaustion of fossil fuel will leave many millions of Americans with no access to food or water and facing certain death. For example, ten or more millions of people in Southern California alone will die within a couple of days after drinking their toilet tanks and swimming pools dry.

Since it’s literally impossible to increase global net energy production, the only approaches which can mitigate this problem are national — to either increase national net energy, or reduce national energy demand, or both. The primary goal of American public policy should be to minimize the suffering [7] of as many American citizens as possible by delivering basic “needs”[8] gratis. Unfortunately, our democratic [9] form of government can not direct us to any specific goal because it is “process politics” instead of “systems politics”:
“As the name implies, process politics emphasizes the adequacy and fairness of the rules governing the process of politics. If the process is fair, then, as in a trial conducted according to due process, the outcome is assumed to be just — or at least the best the system can achieve. By contrast, systems politics is concerned primarily with desired outcomes; means are subordinated to predetermined ends.”[10]

Indeed, all measures that our present government takes to mitigate our problems will make them even worse! [11] Since our present government can not direct us to any specific goal, the first step in mitigation must be to invent a new systems politics. In other words, dump our present “special interest” government in favor of a new “common interest” government based on a new set of values:

“In brief, liberal democracy as we know it — that is, our theory or ‘paradigm’ of politics — is doomed by ecological scarcity; we need a completely new political philosophy and set of political institutions. Moreover, it appears that the basic principles of modern industrial civilization are also incompatible with ecological scarcity and that the whole ideology of modernity growing out of the Enlightenment, especially such central tenets as individualism, may no longer be viable.”[12]

The closest example in our experience was the country on a war footing during World War Two when our economy was directed towards the specific goal of winning the war. Moreover, even if the entire economy were directed towards developing renewable energy supplies, it would be a significant challenge to avoid anarchy because energy available for consumer goods could fall to about 30% of demand:
http://www.warsocialism.com/

Duration : 0:4:36

[youtube eA8SFjBaVH8]

Garamendi, former Deputy Interior Secretary under President Bill Clinton, argued strongly that the plan would signal that California wants to open offshore drilling and supporters would push for more oil exploration on the West Coast.

I refuse to let this lease move forward, Lieutenant Governor John Garamendi said. Approving a drilling proposal will undercut congressional efforts to reintroduce a federal moratorium on offshore oil drilling earlier lifted by the Bush Administration.

The Lieutenant Governor chairs the three-member State Lands Commission, which considered the request to lease land to the Plains Exploration & Production Company to expand drilling off the coast of California.

The Lieutenant Governor, who has consistently opposed offshore drilling, recently spoke with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-San Francisco, and other members of the California congressional delegation who had significant concerns about the lease undercutting their attempts to reintroduce a federal moratorium on oil exploration off the coast.

The State Lands Commissions staff last week recommended voting down the lease, because there were no sound guarantees that the company would have to shut down the plan.

This proposal is not in the best interests of California, Garamendi said. Approval of this lease would be the first time new offshore oil drilling leases were issued in California waters in more than 40 years — since the 1969 Santa Barbara oil spill.

Duration : 0:8:54

[youtube bt4IoJs9F28]

Video by AGP Video.

SANTA MONICA The California State Lands Commission (SLC), the state agency responsible for approving new oil leases in California, today voted for a resolution to reject a Department of Finance proposal to bypass the SLC to permit oil drilling off the coast of California. Lieutenant Governor John Garamendi, chair of the SLC, joined State Controller John Chiang in favor of the resolution, while commission member Tom Sheehy, Chief Deputy Director for the Department of Finance, did not cast a vote as he had to leave the hearing early due to a family emergency.

The State Lands Commission has had the authority to approve oil leases in California since 1937. A copy of the resolution is below.

This is a deliberate attempt to overturn the decision of this body, the State Lands Commission, a decision that was based on the finding that this proposal was not in the interests of the state, Lieutenant Governor John Garamendi said. The proposed legislation gives the power to move forward the lease to the Department of Finance, not the legislature.

This is a blatant power grab; the Department of Finance deliberately misrepresented the level of political support behind this, said Susan Jordan, director of the California Coastal Protection Network. It was appalling to watch. They dont like the decision made by the State Lands Commission, but that is precisely why we have an independent commission.

The three-member State Lands Commission originally considered the request to lease land to the Plains Exploration & Production Company to expand drilling off the coast of California in late January, but Garamendi joined State Controller John Chiang in a two-to-one vote to defeat the proposal.

The new drilling proposal offers California a $100 million loan that must be repaid by forgiving future royalty payments to California. This is an incredibly reckless fiscal policy, added Garamendi, chair of- the California Commission for Economic Development. The cleanup costs for 2007s Cosco Busan oil spill in San Francisco exceeded $70 million, and that was a comparatively minor spill compared to whats possible. California should leave new oil production in the 20th century and reassert its leadership in renewable energy production.

Duration : 0:4:48

[youtube cT0-udJxCY8]

Video by AGP Video.

SANTA MONICA The California State Lands Commission (SLC), the state agency responsible for approving new oil leases in California, today voted for a resolution to reject a Department of Finance proposal to bypass the SLC to permit oil drilling off the coast of California. Lieutenant Governor John Garamendi, chair of the SLC, joined State Controller John Chiang in favor of the resolution, while commission member Tom Sheehy, Chief Deputy Director for the Department of Finance, did not cast a vote as he had to leave the hearing early due to a family emergency.

The State Lands Commission has had the authority to approve oil leases in California since 1937. A copy of the resolution is below.

This is a deliberate attempt to overturn the decision of this body, the State Lands Commission, a decision that was based on the finding that this proposal was not in the interests of the state, Lieutenant Governor John Garamendi said. The proposed legislation gives the power to move forward the lease to the Department of Finance, not the legislature.

This is a blatant power grab; the Department of Finance deliberately misrepresented the level of political support behind this, said Susan Jordan, director of the California Coastal Protection Network. It was appalling to watch. They dont like the decision made by the State Lands Commission, but that is precisely why we have an independent commission.

The three-member State Lands Commission originally considered the request to lease land to the Plains Exploration & Production Company to expand drilling off the coast of California in late January, but Garamendi joined State Controller John Chiang in a two-to-one vote to defeat the proposal.

The new drilling proposal offers California a $100 million loan that must be repaid by forgiving future royalty payments to California. This is an incredibly reckless fiscal policy, added Garamendi, chair of- the California Commission for Economic Development. The cleanup costs for 2007s Cosco Busan oil spill in San Francisco exceeded $70 million, and that was a comparatively minor spill compared to whats possible. California should leave new oil production in the 20th century and reassert its leadership in renewable energy production.

Duration : 0:7:18

[youtube yh1bv07o0ds]

“SHORTAGE OF ENERGY” or “LONGAGE OF PEOPLE”?

By Jay Hanson, August 21, 2007
to discuss the issues raised in this paper http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/the_dieoff_QA

Longage is always soluble; a shortage may not be. — Garrett Hardin

There is a crime here that goes beyond denunciation.
There is a sorrow here that weeping cannot symbolize.
There is a failure here that topples all our success. — John Steinbeck

A specter is haunting developed countries, the specter of “peak oil.” If you were born after 1960, you will probably die of violence, starvation or contagious disease. This is because our genetic demand for more-and-more resources, within a physical environment of less-and-less “net energy”[1] available for those resources, will inevitably lead to widespread violence and global nuclear war.

Geologists have calculated that global oil production [2] and North American natural gas production [3] are peaking about now. American coal is expected to peak about 2035.[4] No alternative — even nuclear [5] — has the potential to replace more than a tiny fraction of the power presently generated by fossil fuels.

America was specifically designed by special interests (e.g., General Motors, Firestone and Standard Oil) to require fossil fuel and automobiles [6] to be viable. The exhaustion of fossil fuel will leave many millions of Americans with no access to food or water and facing certain death. For example, ten or more millions of people in Southern California alone will die within a couple of days after drinking their toilet tanks and swimming pools dry.

Since it’s literally impossible to increase global net energy production, the only approaches which can mitigate this problem are national — to either increase national net energy, or reduce national energy demand, or both. The primary goal of American public policy should be to minimize the suffering [7] of as many American citizens as possible by delivering basic “needs”[8] gratis. Unfortunately, our democratic [9] form of government can not direct us to any specific goal because it is “process politics” instead of “systems politics”:
“As the name implies, process politics emphasizes the adequacy and fairness of the rules governing the process of politics. If the process is fair, then, as in a trial conducted according to due process, the outcome is assumed to be just — or at least the best the system can achieve. By contrast, systems politics is concerned primarily with desired outcomes; means are subordinated to predetermined ends.”[10]

Indeed, all measures that our present government takes to mitigate our problems will make them even worse! [11] Since our present government can not direct us to any specific goal, the first step in mitigation must be to invent a new systems politics. In other words, dump our present “special interest” government in favor of a new “common interest” government based on a new set of values:

“In brief, liberal democracy as we know it — that is, our theory or ‘paradigm’ of politics — is doomed by ecological scarcity; we need a completely new political philosophy and set of political institutions. Moreover, it appears that the basic principles of modern industrial civilization are also incompatible with ecological scarcity and that the whole ideology of modernity growing out of the Enlightenment, especially such central tenets as individualism, may no longer be viable.”[12]

The closest example in our experience was the country on a war footing during World War Two when our economy was directed towards the specific goal of winning the war. Moreover, even if the entire economy were directed towards developing renewable energy supplies, it would be a significant challenge to avoid anarchy because energy available for consumer goods could fall to about 30% of demand:
http://www.warsocialism.com/

Duration : 0:3:37

[youtube J621FuN5zQ0]