In a resource-constrained world, is peak sanity next?
Published Thursday, 15th April 2010
If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to our RSS feed or jump onto our free newsletter. You can now also find us on twitter and Facebook too. Come and join the discussion.
In an interview with The Guardian last month, James Lovelock — the scientist who conceived of the Gaia hypothesis — said he believes that humans have not yet “evolved to the point where we’re clever enough to handle as complex a situation as climate change.”
Could it be? Is our species, as the subhead on the article put it, “too stupid” to prevent climate change? Considering some of the news developments from just the past few days, the question might have some merit. While not likely to be signs of the apocalypse or TEOTWAWKI, stories like these make us wonder if the planet has struck peak sanity:
US Republican Lindsey Graham, historically one of the GOP’s good guys when it comes to supporting clean energy, this week warned that a climate bill might not be in the cards if President Barack Obama names a “controversial” (to Republicans’ eyes, anyway) nominee to succeed retiring Justice John Paul Stevens to the Supreme Court. Nothing like holding the planet hostage for politics, yes?
And then there’s the uproar that’s followed US Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood’s announcement that the government will now give equal consideration to bicycles and pedestrians in transport planning and policy decisions. While cycling aficionados cheered, industry howled with cries of “dumb” and “nonsensical.” One Congressman even went so far as to ask whether there was still mandatory drug testing at the Transportation Department. Really? Heaven forfend we should give any weight to low-carbon means of getting around in the future.
Finally, there’s the mind-blowing conclusion from Standard & Poor’s that the Massey Energy coal mine tragedy that killed 29 miners will be “immaterial” in terms of financial impact to the company. In delivering that assessment, the S&P also upgraded its opinion on the firm from “hold” to “buy.”
If that last tidbit doesn’t make the case for a shift to cleaner — and safer — energy, along with a new standard for corporate social responsibility, we can’t imagine what would.
What was really interesting about the Lovelock piece was that he never said “stupid” in the interview: it was the title of the article reporting the interview in the main piece of the paper. I think he has a point, though, on the evolutionary aspect. If we don’t make a conscious decision to fix the accountancy error that allows fossil fuel their place of supremacy, we won’t get the chance to go on. We will not be the first animal to over-breed trash our environment and suffer its collapse but we will be the first ones to do it knowingly. The evolutionary challenge is to listen to the human being part of our brain rather than acting on the animalistic human doing.
More than half of the world’s nearly seven billion people now live in urban areas, and that proportion is expected to reach almost 69 per cent by 2050. To avoid pushing local and global systems to the point of collapse, cities will need to become much smarter and more efficient Read more ...
Developing the UK’s smart-grid infrastructure will require communications and data technologies that can manage far more information than utilities must handle today. That’s the focus of a strategy report from Greenbang Research: “Enabling the UK’s smart-grid future: The wireless spectrum debate.” The report answers such questions as: Should dedicated Read more ...
The introduction of the feed-in tariff (FIT) incentive policy on 1 April has sparked an explosive reaction in the UK renewable energy market with solar leading the way in installations, according to a new Greenbang research report titled, “The UK’s Feed-in Tariff: Impact, response and market trends for the decade Read more ...
What was really interesting about the Lovelock piece was that he never said “stupid” in the interview: it was the title of the article reporting the interview in the main piece of the paper. I think he has a point, though, on the evolutionary aspect. If we don’t make a conscious decision to fix the accountancy error that allows fossil fuel their place of supremacy, we won’t get the chance to go on. We will not be the first animal to over-breed trash our environment and suffer its collapse but we will be the first ones to do it knowingly. The evolutionary challenge is to listen to the human being part of our brain rather than acting on the animalistic human doing.
http//:bit.ly/hksuperh