From elinwood at westnet.com.au Wed Oct 1 01:52:01 2008 From: elinwood at westnet.com.au (Ella Linwood) Date: Wed, 01 Oct 2008 15:52:01 +1000 Subject: [LE] Wikipedia entry for Living Economies Message-ID: <20081001055203.379423DC025@hosted04.westnet.com.au> Thanks Kevin and Allan for your brief intimation of your thoughts on the subject I raised - though your ensuing discussion deviated from my question and could make it seem that my question has been answered when it hasn't. Is a Wikipedia entry useful, valuable, wanted, not wanted, a waste of time? If so, by what process would it be created? Were it to be left for myself and my partner to do, we would define Living Economies in our own terms, on the radical edge of this movement (ie, beyond Green) and our definition and source links may not represent some of your wishes at all well. Apart from the value of having a 'definition' that is meaningful - ie, beyond the usual generalities of "care for the planet, social equity and sustainability" etc, a Wikipedia entry would also be a links opportunity for LE.org.nz , " Healthy Money Healthy Planet"and others, - and a chance for people who chance upon our paths, to be introduced to a concept and a movement that is new for them. its far easier to criticise than to create..... but be brave, and please share if you have something to offer on this. Ella >Ella, > >Probably a good idea as long as terms are well defined and used properly. > >Unfortunately we far too often see words like 'sustanable' applied >to activities or strategies that are not at all sustanable. > >With the world facing abrupt climate change any activity that >resutls in net carbon emissions into the atmosphere is unsustanable. > >With the world in the middle of the peak oil crisis (and coal really >should be totally off the agenda) any activity involving the >continued use of oil or electricity is by definition unsustanable. > >With phosphorus at peak or close to peak any agricultural system >that is dependent on the use of that is unsustanable. > >In other words we need to create a low population society which is >something akin to that of the 14th century. > >That tends not to be a very popular concept for most people. > >Kind regards > >Kevin > >Survivors know the truth about energy, food and the environment, and >are preparing for the meltdown. >Perishers don't know the truth, or don't care, and still believe the >system will provide, even as it starts to collapse. > > > >---------- >Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2008 18:16:10 +1000 >To: le-members at list.wji.com >From: elinwood at westnet.com.au >Subject: [LE] Wikipedia entry for Living Economies > > > To the LE list, > >Do people on this list think that it is about time to have a >Wikipedia entry for Living Economies/Living Economics? What are your >thoughts on this? > >I use the term quite a bit in my communications with people, and >some of them have told me that they will look it up on Wikipedia - >so I have had to tell them that it can't be found there - that it is >too 'new' and isn't there yet! My partner and I recently began to >define the term in the context of some ongoing work we are doing, >when we realised it is neither a job for, nor the prerogative of two >people to define the concept. > >There are Wikipedia entries for Green Economics, Ecological, >Environmental and Binary Economics, but I don't believe that these >really covers the 'shade of difference' that Living Economies is. I >believe that the term has a useful place in the spectrum of >alternative economic thought. That it includes and encompasses the >above mentioned but as a synthesis is an evolution of all the >others. What that evolution of concept/shade of difference is, I >won't go into here and now but would be interested to hear other's >thoughts about it though. > >A proposed wikipedia text plus links could be initiated at the LE >convention when a number of interested people are >gathered.....? Then it could be run by the wider LE list and LE non >list members, for amendment as part of the development and consent >process. I are willing to contribute time and energy to this small >matter, though can not be at the conference. > >I am half expecting a few of you to reply here with versions of " >AGGGHHH! words, semantics, what who cares - what a a #@*#_$*_* waste >of time and energy when the planet is dying etc etc". Fair >enough, its not for you to get involved in then and I won't argue with you. > >Ella > >P.S.,At the moment on the le.org.nz website Living Economies is >sparsely defined in the sentence that is the mission >statement. Le.org.nz website intro pasted below; > > > > > > > > > >Living Economies > > > > > > > >Pathways to Sustainability > > > > > >Our Mission: >We are working for healthy economies for Aotearoa/New Zealand - >balanced, sustainable and empowering - based on and respecting the >living systems of our planet. > > >More about our Trust can be read >here! > >Our purpose is to show why >complementary >currencies are so important. Read more >here! > >If you are interested in little tidbits of news from the world of >Living Economics and complementary currencies, go and have a look at >our News Blog >external link > . > > > > >---------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://list.wji.com/pipermail/le-members/attachments/20081001/caf6e1e6/attachment.html From baddock at earthlight.co.nz Wed Oct 1 02:24:29 2008 From: baddock at earthlight.co.nz (Al Baddock) Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2008 19:24:29 +1300 Subject: [LE] Wikipedia entry for Living Economies In-Reply-To: <20081001055203.379423DC025@hosted04.westnet.com.au> References: <20081001055203.379423DC025@hosted04.westnet.com.au> Message-ID: Thanks Ella. I can claim no right to define Living Economies. While appreciating the concept and welcoming many of the insights shared on this List, I am but a bystander. I can claim no part in development of the concept, or ownership of it in any way. I am watching, and learning, and forming my own ideas on the way ahead. Whether those ideas ultimately conform to anyone else's notion of a living economy remains to be seen. I would share a thought on a Wikipedia entry though - of which I have rather more experience. I'd suggest it's an excellent idea. I have followed Wikipedia since its early days when it was widely scoffed at and derided as a fatally flawed concept - much as many scoff at Living Economies even now. Wikipedia has weathered that skepticism and emerged as one of the most widely used and universally accessible repositories of information. As someone who makes his living from information, I can say that Wikipedia is now my first port of call in investigating a topic, and in many areas offers more detailed and comprehensive information than is readily available in any traditional library or reference source.( I emphasise "readily available.") I expect the trend for investigators to turn to Wikipedia will continue and increase. So, if anyone is interested in Living Economies being widely recognised as a concept, and having a widely understood meaning, I would suggest having a Wikipedia entry on Living Economies is vital. The other beauty of Wikipedia, as I understand it, is that it is continuously peer-reviewed and open to public challenge - so the definition of it would ultimately not be yours and your partners, nor any other individuals, but a definition generally acceptable to those with an interest in the area. Were you to frame a definition, you would be merely be the brave souls who began the process - as you are in raising it here. Either way, I wish you luck and shall watch with interest. Allan At 3:52 PM +1000 1/10/08, Ella Linwood wrote: >Thanks Kevin and Allan for your brief intimation of your thoughts on >the subject I raised - though your ensuing discussion deviated from >my question and could make it seem that my question has been >answered when it hasn't. > >Is a Wikipedia entry useful, valuable, wanted, not wanted, a waste >of time? If so, by what process would it be created? > >Were it to be left for myself and my partner to do, we would define >Living Economies in our own terms, on the radical edge of this >movement (ie, beyond Green) and our definition and source links may >not represent some of your wishes at all well. > >Apart from the value of having a 'definition' that is meaningful - >ie, beyond the usual generalities of "care for the planet, social >equity and sustainability" etc, a Wikipedia entry would also be a >links opportunity for LE.org.nz , " Healthy Money Healthy Planet"and >others, - and a chance for people who chance upon our paths, to be >introduced to a concept and a movement that is new for them. > > >its far easier to criticise than to create..... > >but be brave, > >and please share if you have something to offer on this. > > >Ella > > > > From kevin_enviro at hotmail.com Wed Oct 1 03:05:26 2008 From: kevin_enviro at hotmail.com (Kevin Moore) Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2008 07:05:26 +0000 Subject: [LE] Wikipedia entry for Living Economies In-Reply-To: <20081001055203.379423DC025@hosted04.westnet.com.au> References: <20081001055203.379423DC025@hosted04.westnet.com.au> Message-ID: 'we would define Living Economies in our own terms, on the radical edge of this movement (ie, beyond Green)' Beyond Green sounds excellent, since most so-called Green is actually greenwash. I may sound awfully cynical but I have a lot of garbage from the Green Party over the past year or so, such as 'sustainable eco-tourism' (there is no such thing of course, other than people coming to NZ on sailing boats and taking horse-driven transport when they get here) Then we had JF pushing frantically for 'biofuels' (which anyone who has done their reasearch will know have poor or negative EROEI ands therfore make our energy problems worse, as well as promoting genocide via starvation) Surely there is only one criterion for any information Wiki site -tell the truth, however difficult or politically unacceptable it may be. If you attempt to anything other than to tell the truth you will get torn to shreds by it (the truth). Kind regards Kevin Survivors know the truth about energy, food and the environment, and are preparing for the meltdown. Perishers don't know the truth, or don't care, and still believe the system will provide, even as it starts to collapse. Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2008 15:52:01 +1000To: le-members at list.wji.comFrom: elinwood at westnet.com.auSubject: Re: [LE] Wikipedia entry for Living EconomiesThanks Kevin and Allan for your brief intimation of your thoughts on the subject I raised - though your ensuing discussion deviated from my question and could make it seem that my question has been answered when it hasn't. Is a Wikipedia entry useful, valuable, wanted, not wanted, a waste of time? If so, by what process would it be created? Were it to be left for myself and my partner to do, we would define Living Economies in our own terms, on the radical edge of this movement (ie, beyond Green) and our definition and source links may not represent some of your wishes at all well. Apart from the value of having a 'definition' that is meaningful - ie, beyond the usual generalities of "care for the planet, social equity and sustainability" etc, a Wikipedia entry would also be a links opportunity for LE.org.nz , " Healthy Money Healthy Planet"and others, - and a chance for people who chance upon our paths, to be introduced to a concept and a movement that is new for them. its far easier to criticise than to create.....but be brave,and please share if you have something to offer on this. Ella Ella, Probably a good idea as long as terms are well defined and used properly. Unfortunately we far too often see words like 'sustanable' applied to activities or strategies that are not at all sustanable. With the world facing abrupt climate change any activity that resutls in net carbon emissions into the atmosphere is unsustanable. With the world in the middle of the peak oil crisis (and coal really should be totally off the agenda) any activity involving the continued use of oil or electricity is by definition unsustanable. With phosphorus at peak or close to peak any agricultural system that is dependent on the use of that is unsustanable. In other words we need to create a low population society which is something akin to that of the 14th century. That tends not to be a very popular concept for most people. Kind regards Kevin Survivors know the truth about energy, food and the environment, and are preparing for the meltdown. Perishers don't know the truth, or don't care, and still believe the system will provide, even as it starts to collapse. Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2008 18:16:10 +1000To: le-members at list.wji.comFrom: elinwood at westnet.com.auSubject: [LE] Wikipedia entry for Living Economies To the LE list,Do people on this list think that it is about time to have a Wikipedia entry for Living Economies/Living Economics? What are your thoughts on this? I use the term quite a bit in my communications with people, and some of them have told me that they will look it up on Wikipedia - so I have had to tell them that it can't be found there - that it is too 'new' and isn't there yet! My partner and I recently began to define the term in the context of some ongoing work we are doing, when we realised it is neither a job for, nor the prerogative of two people to define the concept. There are Wikipedia entries for Green Economics, Ecological, Environmental and Binary Economics, but I don't believe that these really covers the 'shade of difference' that Living Economies is. I believe that the term has a useful place in the spectrum of alternative economic thought. That it includes and encompasses the above mentioned but as a synthesis is an evolution of all the others. What that evolution of concept/shade of difference is, I won't go into here and now but would be interested to hear other's thoughts about it though. A proposed wikipedia text plus links could be initiated at the LE convention when a number of interested people are gathered.....? Then it could be run by the wider LE list and LE non list members, for amendment as part of the development and consent process. I are willing to contribute time and energy to this small matter, though can not be at the conference. I am half expecting a few of you to reply here with versions of " AGGGHHH! words, semantics, what who cares - what a a #@*#_$*_* waste of time and energy when the planet is dying etc etc". Fair enough, its not for you to get involved in then and I won't argue with you. EllaP.S.,At the moment on the le.org.nz website Living Economies is sparsely defined in the sentence that is the mission statement. Le.org.nz website intro pasted below; Living Economies Pathways to SustainabilityOur Mission:We are working for healthy economies for Aotearoa/New Zealand - balanced, sustainable and empowering - based on and respecting the living systems of our planet.More about our Trust can be read here!Our purpose is to show why complementary currencies are so important. Read more here!If you are interested in little tidbits of news from the world of Living Economics and complementary currencies, go and have a look at our News Blog . _________________________________________________________________ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://list.wji.com/pipermail/le-members/attachments/20081001/d7c7345b/attachment.html From kevin_enviro at hotmail.com Wed Oct 1 03:48:07 2008 From: kevin_enviro at hotmail.com (Kevin Moore) Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2008 07:48:07 +0000 Subject: [LE] Wikipedia entry for Living Economies In-Reply-To: References: <20080930081614.D6B8623053C@hosted02.westnet.com.au> Message-ID: 'Are you suggesting that human life does not result in net carbon emissions?' I am not suggesting anything, Alan, I am stating an irrefutable scientific fact. Within a natural ecosystem (i.e. all of humanity prior to the Industrial Revolution, or currently anyone living outside the industrial agriculture system) human respiration resutls in zero carbon dioxide emissions, since all the food consumed was/is derived from carbon dioxide that had previously been removed from the atmosphere via photosynthesis.This is elementary carbon cycle science. It is the use of coal, oil and natural for the production of food (and all the other stupid things we do with fossil fuels) that has buggered the carbon balance of the planet (atmosphere and oceans). And of course the use of ancient sunligjht has wrecked the population balance.... we have around 5 billion too many humans on the planet at the moment. Fortunately nature will be able to deal with the gross population imbalance a lot faster than it will be able to deal with the carbon dioxide imbalance. I probably won't live long enough to see it, but there is no question that there will be a population crash of at least 80% over the coming few decades. On the other hand it will probably take the Earth several thousand years to recover from the damage cause by humans over the past 200 years. And the abrupt climate change event that were are headed for is not averted, the ocean will turn anoxic, then sulphidic and most of the life on the planet will perish, and it will take anything up to 2 million years for the Earth to recover. 'Countless life forms use electricity without reference to national grids or oil crises' I really don't know what you are refering to Alan, unless you mean electric eels, or the electical impulses that are transmitted along nerves in all higher life forms. If that is what you are refering to, it is entirely irrelevant to the argument, since 1) the quantitiy of electrical energy is miniscule and 2) the electrical energy is derived from chemical energy in food that was originally synthesised via photosynthetic conversion of carbon dioxide and water into carbohydrate. i.e. derived from carbon dioxide in the atmophere, as opposed to eh elctrical energy that humans use domestically and industrially, which is largely derived from bunding fossil fuels. I stand by original statement: ignorance and complacency will be the undoing of the human race and of the planet we live on. I'm sorry the science does not fit the current political and economic agendas. Actually I am not sorry at all, since it is the basic chemistry and physics which the current political and economic system totally ignores that will bring about the downfall of the curent political and economic system. It is the damage that will be done before it falls that I am sorry about. Regards Kevin Survivors know the truth about energy, food and the environment, and are preparing for the meltdown. Perishers don't know the truth, or don't care, and still believe the system will provide, even as it starts to collapse. Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2008 16:12:03 +1300To: kevin_enviro at hotmail.com; le-members at list.wji.comFrom: baddock at earthlight.co.nzSubject: RE: [LE] Wikipedia entry for Living Economies Kevin, you stated previously: "any activity involving the continued use of oil or electricity is by definition unsustanable" Countless life forms use electricity without reference to national grids or oil crises. Respiration takes O2 from the atmosphere and replaces it with CO2. Are you suggesting that human life does not result in net carbon emissions? Rather than impugning someone's understanding of basic science, I thought it might be helpful to focus on ensuring we contained the discussion in truly accurate terms - in light of your original suggestion. Otherwise we lapse into the same trap of generalizations and loose use of terms that you complain of. Allan At 1:21 AM +0000 1/10/08, Kevin Moore wrote: Anyone who thinks breathing resutls in net carbon emissions needs to learn the basics of the carbon cycle and understand that carbohydrates are formed from carbon dioxide. Humans (depending on the exact definition of human) lived sustanably for all of their existence (arguably 1-2 million years) until the dawn of agriculture. Even agriculture in itself was not totally disastrous and in some regions of the world was practiced in a sustanable manner. In some regions ther remanants of sustanable agriculture remain. It can be argued that the Chinese civilisation, which existed for around 4,000 years, could have continued anotehr 4,000 years if it had not been for Anglo-American interference. The politically unacceptable fact is that great move to unsustainable living occured during the Industrial Revolution, and since around 1780 ever greater numbers of humans have been liivng ever more unsustanable lives. As previously noted, the unsustanability of the system was worlked out over 100 years ago by Tyndall and Arrhenius. (Or if we include Mathus, 200 years ago). Since the entire present system is prediated on exploitation of the environment and distrubance of the carbon balance, the entire system or any system based on modification of the present system is, by definition, unsustanable. That is why the system is in the process of collapsing and why the environment is collapsing. I am very much with Lovelock, Hansen, Flannery etc. and believe so many positive feedback maechanisms have already been triggered that huimanity is unlikely to make it past 2040. That said, we should act as though there is still a window of opportinity to avert catastrophe. Anyone who does not know the intimate links between electricity generation and oil needs to do the appropriate research. The elcriticity grid will collapse, though the time frame for collapse varies very much around the world -some locations going ubder already. the best estimate for NZ losing its grid is some time betwen 2013 and 2018. The word 'sustanable' has a very clear meaning -that which can continue for a very long time or indefinitely. Until it is generally accepted that 'solutions', particularly technological solutions, are the chief source of problems, we will never make any progress towards sustainability. Sadly, it become increasingly clear to me as time goes on that ignorance and complacency will determine the both fate of humanity and the fate of planet we live on. Kind regards Kevin Survivors know the truth about energy, food and the environment, and are preparing for the meltdown. Perishers don't know the truth, or don't care, and still believe the system will provide, even as it starts to collapse. Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2008 13:06:41 +1300To: le-members at list.wji.comFrom: baddock at earthlight.co.nz Subject: Re: [LE] Wikipedia entry for Living Economies In the context of well defined and proper use of terms, most activities involving breathing surely result in net carbon emissions. Hence human life is unsustainable by this definition. While it probably is, I'm not sure that setting the definition so broadly serves to do other than eliminate the term from having any meaning. And electricity use is not necessarily linked to oil is it? Living organisms use electricity in myriad ways, internally and externally. Perhaps we need to work on definitions a little more. Allan At 11:48 PM +0000 30/9/08, Kevin Moore wrote: Ella, Probably a good idea as long as terms are well defined and used properly. Unfortunately we far too often see words like 'sustanable' applied to activities or strategies that are not at all sustanable. With the world facing abrupt climate change any activity that resutls in net carbon emissions into the atmosphere is unsustanable. With the world in the middle of the peak oil crisis (and coal really should be totally off the agenda) any activity involving the continued use of oil or electricity is by definition unsustanable. With phosphorus at peak or close to peak any agricultural system that is dependent on the use of that is unsustanable. In other words we need to create a low population society which is something akin to that of the 14th century. That tends not to be a very popular concept for most people. Kind regards Kevin Survivors know the truth about energy, food and the environment, and are preparing for the meltdown. Perishers don't know the truth, or don't care, and still believe the system will provide, even as it starts to collapse. _________________________________________________________________ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://list.wji.com/pipermail/le-members/attachments/20081001/3b89590a/attachment-0001.html From kevin_enviro at hotmail.com Wed Oct 1 04:04:18 2008 From: kevin_enviro at hotmail.com (Kevin Moore) Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2008 08:04:18 +0000 Subject: [LE] Wikipedia entry for Living Economies In-Reply-To: <20081001055203.379423DC025@hosted04.westnet.com.au> References: <20081001055203.379423DC025@hosted04.westnet.com.au> Message-ID: By the way Ella, Below is what Albert Brtlett, one of the greatest thinkers of our time said regarding global warming and population. Any discussion of sustainability that does not include very rapid climate change mitigation and population control really is meaningless. Kind regards Kevin A SELF-EVIDENT TRUTHIf any fraction of the observed global warmingcan be attributed to the actions of humans,then this, by itself, constitutesclear and compelling evidencethat the human population, has exceeded the Carrying Capacity of the Earth,a situation that is clearly not sustainable. As a consequence it is AN INCONVENIENT TRUTHthat all proposals or efforts at the local, national or global levelsto solve the problems of global warmingare serious intellectual frauds if they fail to advocate that we addressthe fundamental cause of global warmingnamely overpopulation. Albert A. Bartlett Survivors know the truth about energy, food and the environment, and are preparing for the meltdown. Perishers don't know the truth, or don't care, and still believe the system will provide, even as it starts to collapse. Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2008 15:52:01 +1000To: le-members at list.wji.comFrom: elinwood at westnet.com.auSubject: Re: [LE] Wikipedia entry for Living EconomiesThanks Kevin and Allan for your brief intimation of your thoughts on the subject I raised - though your ensuing discussion deviated from my question and could make it seem that my question has been answered when it hasn't. Is a Wikipedia entry useful, valuable, wanted, not wanted, a waste of time? If so, by what process would it be created? Were it to be left for myself and my partner to do, we would define Living Economies in our own terms, on the radical edge of this movement (ie, beyond Green) and our definition and source links may not represent some of your wishes at all well. Apart from the value of having a 'definition' that is meaningful - ie, beyond the usual generalities of "care for the planet, social equity and sustainability" etc, a Wikipedia entry would also be a links opportunity for LE.org.nz , " Healthy Money Healthy Planet"and others, - and a chance for people who chance upon our paths, to be introduced to a concept and a movement that is new for them. its far easier to criticise than to create.....but be brave,and please share if you have something to offer on this. Ella Ella, Probably a good idea as long as terms are well defined and used properly. Unfortunately we far too often see words like 'sustanable' applied to activities or strategies that are not at all sustanable. With the world facing abrupt climate change any activity that resutls in net carbon emissions into the atmosphere is unsustanable. With the world in the middle of the peak oil crisis (and coal really should be totally off the agenda) any activity involving the continued use of oil or electricity is by definition unsustanable. With phosphorus at peak or close to peak any agricultural system that is dependent on the use of that is unsustanable. In other words we need to create a low population society which is something akin to that of the 14th century. That tends not to be a very popular concept for most people. Kind regards Kevin Survivors know the truth about energy, food and the environment, and are preparing for the meltdown. Perishers don't know the truth, or don't care, and still believe the system will provide, even as it starts to collapse. Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2008 18:16:10 +1000To: le-members at list.wji.comFrom: elinwood at westnet.com.auSubject: [LE] Wikipedia entry for Living Economies To the LE list,Do people on this list think that it is about time to have a Wikipedia entry for Living Economies/Living Economics? What are your thoughts on this? I use the term quite a bit in my communications with people, and some of them have told me that they will look it up on Wikipedia - so I have had to tell them that it can't be found there - that it is too 'new' and isn't there yet! My partner and I recently began to define the term in the context of some ongoing work we are doing, when we realised it is neither a job for, nor the prerogative of two people to define the concept. There are Wikipedia entries for Green Economics, Ecological, Environmental and Binary Economics, but I don't believe that these really covers the 'shade of difference' that Living Economies is. I believe that the term has a useful place in the spectrum of alternative economic thought. That it includes and encompasses the above mentioned but as a synthesis is an evolution of all the others. What that evolution of concept/shade of difference is, I won't go into here and now but would be interested to hear other's thoughts about it though. A proposed wikipedia text plus links could be initiated at the LE convention when a number of interested people are gathered.....? Then it could be run by the wider LE list and LE non list members, for amendment as part of the development and consent process. I are willing to contribute time and energy to this small matter, though can not be at the conference. I am half expecting a few of you to reply here with versions of " AGGGHHH! words, semantics, what who cares - what a a #@*#_$*_* waste of time and energy when the planet is dying etc etc". Fair enough, its not for you to get involved in then and I won't argue with you. EllaP.S.,At the moment on the le.org.nz website Living Economies is sparsely defined in the sentence that is the mission statement. Le.org.nz website intro pasted below; Living Economies Pathways to SustainabilityOur Mission:We are working for healthy economies for Aotearoa/New Zealand - balanced, sustainable and empowering - based on and respecting the living systems of our planet.More about our Trust can be read here!Our purpose is to show why complementary currencies are so important. Read more here!If you are interested in little tidbits of news from the world of Living Economics and complementary currencies, go and have a look at our News Blog . _________________________________________________________________ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://list.wji.com/pipermail/le-members/attachments/20081001/0a0c72ac/attachment.html From antonpinschof at netcourrier.com Wed Oct 1 05:24:06 2008 From: antonpinschof at netcourrier.com (Anton Pinschof) Date: Wed, 01 Oct 2008 11:24:06 +0200 Subject: [LE] Wikipedia entry for Living Economies In-Reply-To: References: <20081001055203.379423DC025@hosted04.westnet.com.au> Message-ID: <48E341B6.7090303@netcourrier.com> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://list.wji.com/pipermail/le-members/attachments/20081001/38c755c2/attachment-0001.html From kevin_enviro at hotmail.com Wed Oct 1 21:42:12 2008 From: kevin_enviro at hotmail.com (Kevin Moore) Date: Thu, 2 Oct 2008 01:42:12 +0000 Subject: [LE] Wikipedia entry for Living Economies In-Reply-To: <20081001055203.379423DC025@hosted04.westnet.com.au> References: <20081001055203.379423DC025@hosted04.westnet.com.au> Message-ID: I have been criticised for not being sufficiently exact. I said previously that any activity involving the use of electricty is, by definition, unsustainable. That was meant to indicate that use of electricity within mainstrseam culture [by households, commerce and industry or municipalities for lighting, heating, powering electric motors, electroplating, electromagnets and everything connected with running computers or information technology] is unsustanable, whether the electricity is generated by burning coal, burning oil, burning natural gas, nuclear, photovoltaic, wind or wave energy. No means of generating electricity is infinitely sustainable, though some forms of generation would be expected to have a longer life and cause less damage than others. i.e. phovoltaic could be regarded as semi-sustainable until the materails degrade, wind until the bearings wear out, hydro until silting behind the dam renders the system inoperable etc. Most analysts conveniently ignore the cabon debt incurred during manufacture and the need for maintenance and replacement when promoting so-called alternative systems. Many incur such massive CO2 debts during manifacture they never repay their CO2 debt to the environment. In most so-called civilised countries the burning of fossil fuels (particuallry coal) is the prime source of energy for powering grids. That is particularly true of Australia, China, the US etc. Continuation along the present path of the burning of fossil fuels is one the fastest routes possible to complete death of the planet via abrupt climate change. Our current way of living, depending on location and lifestyle, involves using energy at anything up to 1000 times the rate we should be using energy, and generating massive quantites of pollution. It is totally unsustanable and will come to an end fairly soon. Any proposal for a Living Economy based on even 10% of current energy use is unsustanable, though it may push out the horizon for abrupt climate change by a few years. We simply do not know. But Dr Jim Hansen and his team at NASA have categorically stated that we should be working toward 'Agenda 350', i.e. 350ppm CO2 if we are to have any chance of preventing a runaway greenhouse effect for the next generation. We are currently at around 390ppm and doing next to nothing to prevent greenhosue gas emissions accelerating, (the 'more population, more roads, expansion of airports, get the coal out of the ground a burn it as quickly as possible' agendas of most political parties) let alone actually doing anything to reduce emissions. I trust the above clarifies. Kind regards Kevin Survivors know the truth about energy, food and the environment, and are preparing for the meltdown. Perishers don't know the truth, or don't care, and still believe the system will provide, even as it starts to collapse. Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2008 15:52:01 +1000To: le-members at list.wji.comFrom: elinwood at westnet.com.auSubject: Re: [LE] Wikipedia entry for Living EconomiesThanks Kevin and Allan for your brief intimation of your thoughts on the subject I raised - though your ensuing discussion deviated from my question and could make it seem that my question has been answered when it hasn't. Is a Wikipedia entry useful, valuable, wanted, not wanted, a waste of time? If so, by what process would it be created? Were it to be left for myself and my partner to do, we would define Living Economies in our own terms, on the radical edge of this movement (ie, beyond Green) and our definition and source links may not represent some of your wishes at all well. Apart from the value of having a 'definition' that is meaningful - ie, beyond the usual generalities of "care for the planet, social equity and sustainability" etc, a Wikipedia entry would also be a links opportunity for LE.org.nz , " Healthy Money Healthy Planet"and others, - and a chance for people who chance upon our paths, to be introduced to a concept and a movement that is new for them. its far easier to criticise than to create.....but be brave,and please share if you have something to offer on this. Ella Ella, Probably a good idea as long as terms are well defined and used properly. Unfortunately we far too often see words like 'sustanable' applied to activities or strategies that are not at all sustanable. With the world facing abrupt climate change any activity that resutls in net carbon emissions into the atmosphere is unsustanable. With the world in the middle of the peak oil crisis (and coal really should be totally off the agenda) any activity involving the continued use of oil or electricity is by definition unsustanable. With phosphorus at peak or close to peak any agricultural system that is dependent on the use of that is unsustanable. In other words we need to create a low population society which is something akin to that of the 14th century. That tends not to be a very popular concept for most people. Kind regards Kevin Survivors know the truth about energy, food and the environment, and are preparing for the meltdown. Perishers don't know the truth, or don't care, and still believe the system will provide, even as it starts to collapse. Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2008 18:16:10 +1000To: le-members at list.wji.comFrom: elinwood at westnet.com.auSubject: [LE] Wikipedia entry for Living Economies To the LE list,Do people on this list think that it is about time to have a Wikipedia entry for Living Economies/Living Economics? What are your thoughts on this? I use the term quite a bit in my communications with people, and some of them have told me that they will look it up on Wikipedia - so I have had to tell them that it can't be found there - that it is too 'new' and isn't there yet! My partner and I recently began to define the term in the context of some ongoing work we are doing, when we realised it is neither a job for, nor the prerogative of two people to define the concept. There are Wikipedia entries for Green Economics, Ecological, Environmental and Binary Economics, but I don't believe that these really covers the 'shade of difference' that Living Economies is. I believe that the term has a useful place in the spectrum of alternative economic thought. That it includes and encompasses the above mentioned but as a synthesis is an evolution of all the others. What that evolution of concept/shade of difference is, I won't go into here and now but would be interested to hear other's thoughts about it though. A proposed wikipedia text plus links could be initiated at the LE convention when a number of interested people are gathered.....? Then it could be run by the wider LE list and LE non list members, for amendment as part of the development and consent process. I are willing to contribute time and energy to this small matter, though can not be at the conference. I am half expecting a few of you to reply here with versions of " AGGGHHH! words, semantics, what who cares - what a a #@*#_$*_* waste of time and energy when the planet is dying etc etc". Fair enough, its not for you to get involved in then and I won't argue with you. EllaP.S.,At the moment on the le.org.nz website Living Economies is sparsely defined in the sentence that is the mission statement. Le.org.nz website intro pasted below; Living Economies Pathways to SustainabilityOur Mission:We are working for healthy economies for Aotearoa/New Zealand - balanced, sustainable and empowering - based on and respecting the living systems of our planet.More about our Trust can be read here!Our purpose is to show why complementary currencies are so important. Read more here!If you are interested in little tidbits of news from the world of Living Economics and complementary currencies, go and have a look at our News Blog . _________________________________________________________________ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://list.wji.com/pipermail/le-members/attachments/20081002/1360d2df/attachment.html From rafmanji at xtra.co.nz Fri Oct 3 21:51:49 2008 From: rafmanji at xtra.co.nz (rafmanji at xtra.co.nz) Date: Sat, 4 Oct 2008 01:51:49 +0000 Subject: [LE] Wikipedia entry for Living Economies In-Reply-To: References: <20081001055203.379423DC025@hosted04.westnet.com.au> Message-ID: <1146326566-1222998783-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-1759074697-@bxe004.bisx.prodap.on.blackberry> Kevin Your forecast collapse of society may or may not happen when or how you believe. Our ability to forecast is woeful even with our amazing computational resources. But death has always been the one certainty we can all rely on. I think Living Economies is all about developing and promoting living systems whether we have a population of 6 bln or 6m. Perhaps you should start a new group to run in parellel to LE? It could be called Dying Economies :-) Blessings Raf -------------------------- -----Original Message----- From: Kevin Moore Date: Thu, 2 Oct 2008 01:42:12 To: Ella Linwood; Subject: Re: [LE] Wikipedia entry for Living Economies _______________________________________________ LE-Members mailing list LE-Members at wji.com http://list.wji.com/mailman/listinfo/le-members From kevin_enviro at hotmail.com Thu Oct 2 22:57:10 2008 From: kevin_enviro at hotmail.com (Kevin Moore) Date: Fri, 3 Oct 2008 02:57:10 +0000 Subject: [LE] Wikipedia entry for Living Economies In-Reply-To: <1146326566-1222998783-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-1759074697-@bxe004.bisx.prodap.on.blackberry> References: <20081001055203.379423DC025@hosted04.westnet.com.au> <1146326566-1222998783-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-1759074697-@bxe004.bisx.prodap.on.blackberry> Message-ID: Dear Raf, I am simply pointing out that prior to the Industrial Revolution and prior to industrial argriculture we had Living Economies. What we have now is an economy of abuse and death that is totally unsustanable and is killing the planet -though most people in Western nations fail to recognise that we live in a culture of abuse and death because they fail to connect the dots -indeed, have been carefully trained by the system and its all its agents to remain uninformed and to not connect the dots! Neuro-linguistic programming is a very, very powerful tool in the wrong hands! Not only is the dominant culture killing the planet, but it is also 'killing' the efforts of people such as the LE group who earnestly to try to make a future for the next generation. One of the main reasons this continuing dire state of affairs is able to be maintained by the system is because most people in Western societies are entirely detached from the natural world that makes their lives possible. Under such circumstances it will only when the industrial system fails they will realise the extent to which they have been lied to and misled. Fortunately the dominant economic system is in the process of dying, so your suggestion 'Perhaps you should start a new group to run in parellel to LE? It could be called Dying Economies :-)' is entirely unnecessary . I personally would be very surprised if current economic arrangements can be maintianed for more than another year or two. Having spent the past decade trying to wake up those who slumber through peak oil and environmental collapse, I have no interest in further activsm or formation of groups. Very soon it will be a fight for survival for most people in Western nations (as is already the case throughout most of the rest of the world). Of course the whole purpose of warning people about what is on its way is simply a form of humanism -trying to reduce the overall degree of suffering that people will have to endure. However, at this late stage in the game I am under no illusions: ignorance and complacency will undoubtedly rule to the bitter end. What people now have the very simple choice of becoming informed and making appropriate prepartions, therrby increasing their chances of survival, or not. The great irony is that the more people who perish in the first round oif die-ff, the easier it will be for those who remain. Profssor Albert Bartlett said it all in his absolutley brilliant lecture 'Arithmentic, Population and Energy' (very easily found by Internet search if anyone has not seen it). I doubt that anyone will ever improve on what Professor Bartlett said in that lecture. Kind regards Kevin Survivors know the truth about energy, food and the environment, and are preparing for the meltdown. Perishers don't know the truth, or don't care, and still believe the system will provide, even as it starts to collapse.> To: kevin_enviro at hotmail.com; le-members-bounces at wji.com; elinwood at westnet.com.au; le-members at list.wji.com> Subject: Re: [LE] Wikipedia entry for Living Economies> From: rafmanji at xtra.co.nz> Date: Sat, 4 Oct 2008 01:51:49 +0000> > Kevin> > Your forecast collapse of society may or may not happen when or how you believe. Our ability to forecast is woeful even with our amazing computational resources.> > But death has always been the one certainty we can all rely on.> > I think Living Economies is all about developing and promoting living systems whether we have a population of 6 bln or 6m.> > Perhaps you should start a new group to run in parellel to LE?> > It could be called Dying Economies :-)> > Blessings> > Raf> > --------------------------> > -----Original Message-----> From: Kevin Moore > > Date: Thu, 2 Oct 2008 01:42:12 > To: Ella Linwood; > Subject: Re: [LE] Wikipedia entry for Living Economies> > > _______________________________________________> LE-Members mailing list> LE-Members at wji.com> http://list.wji.com/mailman/listinfo/le-members> > > _________________________________________________________________ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://list.wji.com/pipermail/le-members/attachments/20081002/17065352/attachment-0001.html From manning at kapiti.co.nz Thu Oct 2 23:17:20 2008 From: manning at kapiti.co.nz (Lowell Manning) Date: Fri, 3 Oct 2008 15:17:20 +1200 Subject: [LE] Wikipedia entry for Living Economies In-Reply-To: References: <20081001055203.379423DC025@hosted04.westnet.com.au> <1146326566-1222998783-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-1759074697-@bxe004.bisx.prodap.on.blackberry> Message-ID: Take care folks, Having just spent months studying the English economic history from 1300-1800, I wouldn't go overboard with its "Living Economy" Except possibly for a period towards the end of the 15th century when the population was still very low after having been halved by plague and pestilence, for most people life was a real struggle for survival. In fact, Raj is right, they were dying economies rather than living ones. About half the children died by age 10 and the average life expectancy was in the low 30's, ( as low as 25 in London which was a veritable people eater) The Living Economies promoted by the LE group has little in keeping with pre-industrial England. Cheers, Lowell Manning On 3/10/2008, at 2:57 PM, Kevin Moore wrote: > Dear Raf, > > I am simply pointing out that prior to the Industrial Revolution > and prior to industrial argriculture > we had Living Economies. > > What we have now is an economy of abuse and death that is totally > unsustanable and is killing > the planet -though most people in Western nations fail to recognise > that we live in a culture of > abuse and death because they fail to connect the dots -indeed, > have been carefully trained by > the system and its all its agents to remain uninformed and to not > connect the dots! > Neuro-linguistic programming is a very, very powerful tool in the > wrong hands! > > Not only is the dominant culture killing the planet, but it is also > 'killing' the efforts of people > such as the LE group who earnestly to try to make a future for the > next generation. > > One of the main reasons this continuing dire state of affairs is > able to be maintained by the > system is because most people in Western societies are entirely > detached from the natural > world that makes their lives possible. > > Under such circumstances it will only when the industrial system > fails they will realise the > extent to which they have been lied to and misled. > > Fortunately the dominant economic system is in the process of > dying, so your suggestion > 'Perhaps you should start a new group to run in parellel to LE? It > could be called Dying > Economies :-)' is entirely unnecessary . I personally would be > very surprised if current economic arrangements can be maintianed > for more than another year or two. > > Having spent the past decade trying to wake up those who slumber > through peak oil > and environmental collapse, I have no interest in further activsm > or formation of groups. > Very soon it will be a fight for survival for most people in > Western nations (as is already > the case throughout most of the rest of the world). > > Of course the whole purpose of warning people about what is on its > way is simply a form of > humanism -trying to reduce the overall degree of suffering that > people will have to endure. > > However, at this late stage in the game I am under no illusions: > ignorance and complacency > will undoubtedly rule to the bitter end. > > What people now have the very simple choice of becoming informed > and making appropriate > prepartions, therrby increasing their chances of survival, or not. > > The great irony is that the more people who perish in the first > round oif die-ff, the > easier it will be for those who remain. > > Profssor Albert Bartlett said it all in his absolutley brilliant > lecture 'Arithmentic, > Population and Energy' (very easily found by Internet search if > anyone has not seen it). > I doubt that anyone will ever improve on what Professor Bartlett > said in that lecture. > > Kind regards > > Kevin > > > > Survivors know the truth about energy, food and the environment, > and are preparing for the meltdown. > Perishers don't know the truth, or don't care, and still believe > the system will provide, even as it starts to collapse. > > > > To: kevin_enviro at hotmail.com; le-members-bounces at wji.com; > elinwood at westnet.com.au; le-members at list.wji.com > > Subject: Re: [LE] Wikipedia entry for Living Economies > > From: rafmanji at xtra.co.nz > > Date: Sat, 4 Oct 2008 01:51:49 +0000 > > > > Kevin > > > > Your forecast collapse of society may or may not happen when or > how you believe. Our ability to forecast is woeful even with our > amazing computational resources. > > > > But death has always been the one certainty we can all rely on. > > > > I think Living Economies is all about developing and promoting > living systems whether we have a population of 6 bln or 6m. > > > > Perhaps you should start a new group to run in parellel to LE? > > > > It could be called Dying Economies :-) > > > > Blessings > > > > Raf > > > > -------------------------- > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Kevin Moore > > > > Date: Thu, 2 Oct 2008 01:42:12 > > To: Ella Linwood; > > Subject: Re: [LE] Wikipedia entry for Living Economies > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > LE-Members mailing list > > LE-Members at wji.com > > http://list.wji.com/mailman/listinfo/le-members > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > LE-Members mailing list > LE-Members at wji.com > http://list.wji.com/mailman/listinfo/le-members -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://list.wji.com/pipermail/le-members/attachments/20081002/e816eda1/attachment.html From kevin_enviro at hotmail.com Fri Oct 3 02:38:31 2008 From: kevin_enviro at hotmail.com (Kevin Moore) Date: Fri, 3 Oct 2008 06:38:31 +0000 Subject: [LE] Wikipedia entry for Living Economies In-Reply-To: References: <20081001055203.379423DC025@hosted04.westnet.com.au> <1146326566-1222998783-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-1759074697-@bxe004.bisx.prodap.on.blackberry> Message-ID: You have hit the nail on the head Lowell. The death rate was very close to the birth rate, so there was very little population growth. The population of the world was well below 1 billion for century after century, and would have remained below 1 billion had it not been for the unsustainable use of coal, and then subsequently oil and natural gas. Now we are on gross overshoot (check the work of Catton, who calculates that overshoot commenced around 1860). Depending on the estimate of how many people can be fed by sustanable agriculture (best analysis indicates between 0.5 billion and 1.5 billion) we need around 5 billion to perish before we can even contemplate establishing a truly sustainable society. Much of the debate does depend on whether we intend to devote all the resources of the planet to feeding people, or whether we are prepared to share the planet with millions of other species that have as much right to life as humans, such as elephants, tigers, orang-utans etc. Most of the data I have seen lately suggests 'we' intend to wipe out most other life forms by habitat destruction and global warming. The majority of amphibians are perilously close to extinction, as are numerous mammals and birds. Of course human population control is a taboo subject in most quarters, which is why debates usually never get anywhere. So nature is going to deal with the human population overshoot in ways which will not be pleasant. Regards Kevin P.S. Have you actually seen/read the Albert Bartlett lecture? There really is little point in continuing the debate if you have not. Survivors know the truth about energy, food and the environment, and are preparing for the meltdown. Perishers don't know the truth, or don't care, and still believe the system will provide, even as it starts to collapse. CC: rafmanji at xtra.co.nz; le-members-bounces at wji.com; elinwood at westnet.com.au; le-members at list.wji.comFrom: manning at kapiti.co.nzSubject: Re: [LE] Wikipedia entry for Living EconomiesDate: Fri, 3 Oct 2008 15:17:20 +1200To: kevin_enviro at hotmail.com Take care folks, Having just spent months studying the English economic history from 1300-1800, I wouldn't go overboard with its "Living Economy" Except possibly for a period towards the end of the 15th century when the population was still very low after having been halved by plague and pestilence, for most people life was a real struggle for survival. In fact, Raj is right, they were dying economies rather than living ones. About half the children died by age 10 and the average life expectancy was in the low 30's, ( as low as 25 in London which was a veritable people eater) The Living Economies promoted by the LE group has little in keeping with pre-industrial England. Cheers, Lowell Manning On 3/10/2008, at 2:57 PM, Kevin Moore wrote: Dear Raf, I am simply pointing out that prior to the Industrial Revolution and prior to industrial argriculturewe had Living Economies. What we have now is an economy of abuse and death that is totally unsustanable and is killing the planet -though most people in Western nations fail to recognise that we live in a culture ofabuse and death because they fail to connect the dots -indeed, have been carefully trained by the system and its all its agents to remain uninformed and to not connect the dots! Neuro-linguistic programming is a very, very powerful tool in the wrong hands! Not only is the dominant culture killing the planet, but it is also 'killing' the efforts of people such as the LE group who earnestly to try to make a future for the next generation. One of the main reasons this continuing dire state of affairs is able to be maintained by the system is because most people in Western societies are entirely detached from the natural world that makes their lives possible. Under such circumstances it will only when the industrial system fails they will realise the extent to which they have been lied to and misled. Fortunately the dominant economic system is in the process of dying, so your suggestion'Perhaps you should start a new group to run in parellel to LE? It could be called Dying Economies :-)' is entirely unnecessary . I personally would be very surprised if current economic arrangements can be maintianed for more than another year or two. Having spent the past decade trying to wake up those who slumber through peak oil and environmental collapse, I have no interest in further activsm or formation of groups. Very soon it will be a fight for survival for most people in Western nations (as is already the case throughout most of the rest of the world). Of course the whole purpose of warning people about what is on its way is simply a form of humanism -trying to reduce the overall degree of suffering that people will have to endure. However, at this late stage in the game I am under no illusions: ignorance and complacency will undoubtedly rule to the bitter end. What people now have the very simple choice of becoming informed and making appropriate prepartions, therrby increasing their chances of survival, or not. The great irony is that the more people who perish in the first round oif die-ff, the easier it will be for those who remain. Profssor Albert Bartlett said it all in his absolutley brilliant lecture 'Arithmentic, Population and Energy' (very easily found by Internet search if anyone has not seen it).I doubt that anyone will ever improve on what Professor Bartlett said in that lecture. Kind regards Kevin Survivors know the truth about energy, food and the environment, and are preparing for the meltdown. Perishers don't know the truth, or don't care, and still believe the system will provide, even as it starts to collapse.> To: kevin_enviro at hotmail.com; le-members-bounces at wji.com; elinwood at westnet.com.au; le-members at list.wji.com> Subject: Re: [LE] Wikipedia entry for Living Economies> From: rafmanji at xtra.co.nz> Date: Sat, 4 Oct 2008 01:51:49 +0000> > Kevin> > Your forecast collapse of society may or may not happen when or how you believe. Our ability to forecast is woeful even with our amazing computational resources.> > But death has always been the one certainty we can all rely on.> > I think Living Economies is all about developing and promoting living systems whether we have a population of 6 bln or 6m.> > Perhaps you should start a new group to run in parellel to LE?> > It could be called Dying Economies :-)> > Blessings> > Raf> > --------------------------> > -----Original Message-----> From: Kevin Moore > > Date: Thu, 2 Oct 2008 01:42:12 > To: Ella Linwood; > Subject: Re: [LE] Wikipedia entry for Living Economies> > > _______________________________________________> LE-Members mailing list> LE-Members at wji.com> http://list.wji.com/mailman/listinfo/le-members> > > _______________________________________________ LE-Members mailing list LE-Members at wji.com http://list.wji.com/mailman/listinfo/le-members _________________________________________________________________ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://list.wji.com/pipermail/le-members/attachments/20081003/d35e400f/attachment-0001.html From bryan at ecoshow.co.nz Fri Oct 3 05:22:06 2008 From: bryan at ecoshow.co.nz (Bryan Innes) Date: Fri, 3 Oct 2008 22:22:06 +1300 Subject: [LE] Wikipedia entry for Living Economies In-Reply-To: References: <20081001055203.379423DC025@hosted04.westnet.com.au> <1146326566-1222998783-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-1759074697-@bxe004.bisx.prodap.on.blackberry> Message-ID: I think that estimates of the human carrying capacity of the earth are all very much back of the napkin. It is however clear that we have been behaving highly inefficiently both with current solar energy and fossil fuels. We are simply dominators and destroyers. We need less people in order for other life to continue. We need less people because we are out of balance with all other life on earth. How many less depends on how efficient we can become and how prepared we are to govern our appetites. Somehow we must stop being dominators and destroyers otherwise no amount of population reduction will make any difference. Energy and ethical failure has given us too much leverage. There appear to be physical solutions to many of the problems that we have caused. It is the ethical, cultural and spiritual solutions that are failing us. One important thing is to cultivate a more healthy relationship with death. Perishing or surviving? I will be perishing anyway. Bryan Bryan Innes Ecoshow 2008 Choosing Sustainability October 10-12th Taupo p: 07 377 8910 f: 07 377 8914 m: 021 799 056 bryan at ecoshow.co.nz PS visit www.ecoshow.co.nz for details and a 3 minute video of previous Ecoshow On 3/10/2008, at 7:38 PM, Kevin Moore wrote: > You have hit the nail on the head Lowell. The death rate was very > close to the birth rate, > so there was very little population growth. The population of the > world was well below 1 billion > for century after century, and would have remained below 1 billion > had it not been for the > unsustainable use of coal, and then subsequently oil and natural gas. > > Now we are on gross overshoot (check the work of Catton, who > calculates that overshoot > commenced around 1860). Depending on the estimate of how many > people can be fed by > sustanable agriculture (best analysis indicates between 0.5 billion > and 1.5 billion) we need > around 5 billion to perish before we can even contemplate > establishing a truly sustainable > society. > > Much of the debate does depend on whether we intend to devote all > the resources of the > planet to feeding people, or whether we are prepared to share the > planet with millions > of other species that have as much right to life as humans, such as > elephants, tigers, > orang-utans etc. Most of the data I have seen lately suggests 'we' > intend to wipe out > most other life forms by habitat destruction and global warming. > The majority of amphibians > are perilously close to extinction, as are numerous mammals and birds. > > Of course human population control is a taboo subject in most > quarters, which is why debates > usually never get anywhere. So nature is going to deal with the > human population overshoot > in ways which will not be pleasant. > > Regards > > Kevin > > P.S. Have you actually seen/read the Albert Bartlett lecture? There > really is little point in > continuing the debate if you have not. > > > Survivors know the truth about energy, food and the environment, > and are preparing for the meltdown. > Perishers don't know the truth, or don't care, and still believe > the system will provide, even as it starts to collapse. > > > CC: rafmanji at xtra.co.nz; le-members-bounces at wji.com; > elinwood at westnet.com.au; le-members at list.wji.com > From: manning at kapiti.co.nz > Subject: Re: [LE] Wikipedia entry for Living Economies > Date: Fri, 3 Oct 2008 15:17:20 +1200 > To: kevin_enviro at hotmail.com > > Take care folks, > > Having just spent months studying the English economic history from > 1300-1800, I wouldn't go overboard with its "Living Economy" > > Except possibly for a period towards the end of the 15th century > when the population was still very low after having been halved by > plague and pestilence, for most people life was a real struggle for > survival. In fact, Raj is right, they were dying economies > rather than living ones. About half the children died by age 10 and > the average life expectancy was in the low 30's, ( as low as 25 in > London which was a veritable people eater) > > The Living Economies promoted by the LE group has little in keeping > with pre-industrial England. > > Cheers, > Lowell Manning > > > On 3/10/2008, at 2:57 PM, Kevin Moore wrote: > > Dear Raf, > > I am simply pointing out that prior to the Industrial Revolution > and prior to industrial argriculture > we had Living Economies. > > What we have now is an economy of abuse and death that is totally > unsustanable and is killing > the planet -though most people in Western nations fail to recognise > that we live in a culture of > abuse and death because they fail to connect the dots -indeed, > have been carefully trained by > the system and its all its agents to remain uninformed and to not > connect the dots! > Neuro-linguistic programming is a very, very powerful tool in the > wrong hands! > > Not only is the dominant culture killing the planet, but it is also > 'killing' the efforts of people > such as the LE group who earnestly to try to make a future for the > next generation. > > One of the main reasons this continuing dire state of affairs is > able to be maintained by the > system is because most people in Western societies are entirely > detached from the natural > world that makes their lives possible. > > Under such circumstances it will only when the industrial system > fails they will realise the > extent to which they have been lied to and misled. > > Fortunately the dominant economic system is in the process of > dying, so your suggestion > 'Perhaps you should start a new group to run in parellel to LE? It > could be called Dying > Economies :-)' is entirely unnecessary . I personally would be > very surprised if current economic arrangements can be maintianed > for more than another year or two. > > Having spent the past decade trying to wake up those who slumber > through peak oil > and environmental collapse, I have no interest in further activsm > or formation of groups. > Very soon it will be a fight for survival for most people in > Western nations (as is already > the case throughout most of the rest of the world). > > Of course the whole purpose of warning people about what is on its > way is simply a form of > humanism -trying to reduce the overall degree of suffering that > people will have to endure. > > However, at this late stage in the game I am under no illusions: > ignorance and complacency > will undoubtedly rule to the bitter end. > > What people now have the very simple choice of becoming informed > and making appropriate > prepartions, therrby increasing their chances of survival, or not. > > The great irony is that the more people who perish in the first > round oif die-ff, the > easier it will be for those who remain. > > Profssor Albert Bartlett said it all in his absolutley brilliant > lecture 'Arithmentic, > Population and Energy' (very easily found by Internet search if > anyone has not seen it). > I doubt that anyone will ever improve on what Professor Bartlett > said in that lecture. > > Kind regards > > Kevin > > > > Survivors know the truth about energy, food and the environment, > and are preparing for the meltdown. > Perishers don't know the truth, or don't care, and still believe > the system will provide, even as it starts to collapse. > > > > To: kevin_enviro at hotmail.com; le-members-bounces at wji.com; > elinwood at westnet.com.au; le-members at list.wji.com > > Subject: Re: [LE] Wikipedia entry for Living Economies > > From: rafmanji at xtra.co.nz > > Date: Sat, 4 Oct 2008 01:51:49 +0000 > > > > Kevin > > > > Your forecast collapse of society may or may not happen when or > how you believe. Our ability to forecast is woeful even with our > amazing computational resources. > > > > But death has always been the one certainty we can all rely on. > > > > I think Living Economies is all about developing and promoting > living systems whether we have a population of 6 bln or 6m. > > > > Perhaps you should start a new group to run in parellel to LE? > > > > It could be called Dying Economies :-) > > > > Blessings > > > > Raf > > > > -------------------------- > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Kevin Moore > > > > Date: Thu, 2 Oct 2008 01:42:12 > > To: Ella Linwood; > > Subject: Re: [LE] Wikipedia entry for Living Economies > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > LE-Members mailing list > > LE-Members at wji.com > > http://list.wji.com/mailman/listinfo/le-members > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > LE-Members mailing list > LE-Members at wji.com > http://list.wji.com/mailman/listinfo/le-members > > > _______________________________________________ > LE-Members mailing list > LE-Members at wji.com > http://list.wji.com/mailman/listinfo/le-members -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://list.wji.com/pipermail/le-members/attachments/20081003/1e6c6e3a/attachment-0001.html From bryan at ecoshow.co.nz Fri Oct 3 05:29:14 2008 From: bryan at ecoshow.co.nz (Bryan Innes) Date: Fri, 3 Oct 2008 22:29:14 +1300 Subject: [LE] Wikipedia entry for Living Economies In-Reply-To: References: <20081001055203.379423DC025@hosted04.westnet.com.au> <1146326566-1222998783-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-1759074697-@bxe004.bisx.prodap.on.blackberry> Message-ID: I think that estimates of the human carrying capacity of the earth are all very much back of the napkin. It is however clear that we have been behaving highly inefficiently both with current solar energy and fossil fuels. We are simply dominators and destroyers. We need less people in order for other life to continue. We need less people because we are out of balance with all other life on earth. How many less depends on how efficient we can become and how prepared we are to govern our appetites. Somehow we must stop being dominators and destroyers otherwise no amount of population reduction will make any difference. Energy and ethical failure has given us too much leverage. There appear to be physical solutions to many of the problems that we have caused. It is the ethical, cultural and spiritual solutions that are failing us. One important thing is to cultivate a more healthy relationship with death. Perishing or surviving? I will be perishing anyway. Bryan Bryan Innes Ecoshow 2008 Choosing Sustainability October 10-12th Taupo p: 07 377 8910 f: 07 377 8914 m: 021 799 056 bryan at ecoshow.co.nz PS visit www.ecoshow.co.nz for details and a 3 minute video of previous Ecoshow On 3/10/2008, at 7:38 PM, Kevin Moore wrote: > You have hit the nail on the head Lowell. The death rate was very > close to the birth rate, > so there was very little population growth. The population of the > world was well below 1 billion > for century after century, and would have remained below 1 billion > had it not been for the > unsustainable use of coal, and then subsequently oil and natural gas. > > Now we are on gross overshoot (check the work of Catton, who > calculates that overshoot > commenced around 1860). Depending on the estimate of how many > people can be fed by > sustanable agriculture (best analysis indicates between 0.5 billion > and 1.5 billion) we need > around 5 billion to perish before we can even contemplate > establishing a truly sustainable > society. > > Much of the debate does depend on whether we intend to devote all > the resources of the > planet to feeding people, or whether we are prepared to share the > planet with millions > of other species that have as much right to life as humans, such as > elephants, tigers, > orang-utans etc. Most of the data I have seen lately suggests 'we' > intend to wipe out > most other life forms by habitat destruction and global warming. > The majority of amphibians > are perilously close to extinction, as are numerous mammals and birds. > > Of course human population control is a taboo subject in most > quarters, which is why debates > usually never get anywhere. So nature is going to deal with the > human population overshoot > in ways which will not be pleasant. > > Regards > > Kevin > > P.S. Have you actually seen/read the Albert Bartlett lecture? There > really is little point in > continuing the debate if you have not. > > > Survivors know the truth about energy, food and the environment, > and are preparing for the meltdown. > Perishers don't know the truth, or don't care, and still believe > the system will provide, even as it starts to collapse. > > > CC: rafmanji at xtra.co.nz; le-members-bounces at wji.com; > elinwood at westnet.com.au; le-members at list.wji.com > From: manning at kapiti.co.nz > Subject: Re: [LE] Wikipedia entry for Living Economies > Date: Fri, 3 Oct 2008 15:17:20 +1200 > To: kevin_enviro at hotmail.com > > Take care folks, > > Having just spent months studying the English economic history from > 1300-1800, I wouldn't go overboard with its "Living Economy" > > Except possibly for a period towards the end of the 15th century > when the population was still very low after having been halved by > plague and pestilence, for most people life was a real struggle for > survival. In fact, Raj is right, they were dying economies > rather than living ones. About half the children died by age 10 and > the average life expectancy was in the low 30's, ( as low as 25 in > London which was a veritable people eater) > > The Living Economies promoted by the LE group has little in keeping > with pre-industrial England. > > Cheers, > Lowell Manning > > > On 3/10/2008, at 2:57 PM, Kevin Moore wrote: > > Dear Raf, > > I am simply pointing out that prior to the Industrial Revolution > and prior to industrial argriculture > we had Living Economies. > > What we have now is an economy of abuse and death that is totally > unsustanable and is killing > the planet -though most people in Western nations fail to recognise > that we live in a culture of > abuse and death because they fail to connect the dots -indeed, > have been carefully trained by > the system and its all its agents to remain uninformed and to not > connect the dots! > Neuro-linguistic programming is a very, very powerful tool in the > wrong hands! > > Not only is the dominant culture killing the planet, but it is also > 'killing' the efforts of people > such as the LE group who earnestly to try to make a future for the > next generation. > > One of the main reasons this continuing dire state of affairs is > able to be maintained by the > system is because most people in Western societies are entirely > detached from the natural > world that makes their lives possible. > > Under such circumstances it will only when the industrial system > fails they will realise the > extent to which they have been lied to and misled. > > Fortunately the dominant economic system is in the process of > dying, so your suggestion > 'Perhaps you should start a new group to run in parellel to LE? It > could be called Dying > Economies :-)' is entirely unnecessary . I personally would be > very surprised if current economic arrangements can be maintianed > for more than another year or two. > > Having spent the past decade trying to wake up those who slumber > through peak oil > and environmental collapse, I have no interest in further activsm > or formation of groups. > Very soon it will be a fight for survival for most people in > Western nations (as is already > the case throughout most of the rest of the world). > > Of course the whole purpose of warning people about what is on its > way is simply a form of > humanism -trying to reduce the overall degree of suffering that > people will have to endure. > > However, at this late stage in the game I am under no illusions: > ignorance and complacency > will undoubtedly rule to the bitter end. > > What people now have the very simple choice of becoming informed > and making appropriate > prepartions, therrby increasing their chances of survival, or not. > > The great irony is that the more people who perish in the first > round oif die-ff, the > easier it will be for those who remain. > > Profssor Albert Bartlett said it all in his absolutley brilliant > lecture 'Arithmentic, > Population and Energy' (very easily found by Internet search if > anyone has not seen it). > I doubt that anyone will ever improve on what Professor Bartlett > said in that lecture. > > Kind regards > > Kevin > > > > Survivors know the truth about energy, food and the environment, > and are preparing for the meltdown. > Perishers don't know the truth, or don't care, and still believe > the system will provide, even as it starts to collapse. > > > > To: kevin_enviro at hotmail.com; le-members-bounces at wji.com; > elinwood at westnet.com.au; le-members at list.wji.com > > Subject: Re: [LE] Wikipedia entry for Living Economies > > From: rafmanji at xtra.co.nz > > Date: Sat, 4 Oct 2008 01:51:49 +0000 > > > > Kevin > > > > Your forecast collapse of society may or may not happen when or > how you believe. Our ability to forecast is woeful even with our > amazing computational resources. > > > > But death has always been the one certainty we can all rely on. > > > > I think Living Economies is all about developing and promoting > living systems whether we have a population of 6 bln or 6m. > > > > Perhaps you should start a new group to run in parellel to LE? > > > > It could be called Dying Economies :-) > > > > Blessings > > > > Raf > > > > -------------------------- > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Kevin Moore > > > > Date: Thu, 2 Oct 2008 01:42:12 > > To: Ella Linwood; > > Subject: Re: [LE] Wikipedia entry for Living Economies > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > LE-Members mailing list > > LE-Members at wji.com > > http://list.wji.com/mailman/listinfo/le-members > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > LE-Members mailing list > LE-Members at wji.com > http://list.wji.com/mailman/listinfo/le-members > > > _______________________________________________ > LE-Members mailing list > LE-Members at wji.com > http://list.wji.com/mailman/listinfo/le-members -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://list.wji.com/pipermail/le-members/attachments/20081003/7f09e366/attachment-0001.html From utr at raglan.net.nz Sat Oct 4 21:44:23 2008 From: utr at raglan.net.nz (Aaron) Date: Sun, 5 Oct 2008 14:44:23 +1300 Subject: [LE] NZ economic analysis Message-ID: <00b201c9268b$e51136b0$0201a8c0@aaron> It's great to read the excellent economic analysis that comes out of the US alternative media but I'm wondering if anyone knows of someone in New Zealand who is able to discuss the state of the New Zealand economy in the same way that Mike Whitney on Information Clearing House does (for instance) . The recent events in the US financial markets and the their impact on the average citizen comes as no surprise since US writers have done such an excellent job in outlining the problems over there. It's frustrating though that I'm actually less informed about my own country and don't know, for instance, how much debt local banks are carrying, how much of that is in sub prime mortgages and just how close to a meltdown we actually are. I know this is not strictly on topic (although the meltdown of the national economy will probably provide fertile ground for LE) but I thought someone around here might be able to help me out Aaron -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://list.wji.com/pipermail/le-members/attachments/20081004/6367481f/attachment.html From rafmanji at xtra.co.nz Sun Oct 5 22:11:18 2008 From: rafmanji at xtra.co.nz (rafmanji at xtra.co.nz) Date: Mon, 6 Oct 2008 02:11:18 +0000 Subject: [LE] NZ economic analysis In-Reply-To: <00b201c9268b$e51136b0$0201a8c0@aaron> References: <00b201c9268b$e51136b0$0201a8c0@aaron> Message-ID: <1950629142-1223172696-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-127950888-@bxe004.bisx.prodap.on.blackberry> Aaron You could try www.interest.co.nz and click on the blog. it has daily news on all things monetary, opinion pieces and a well debated comments section. there is even a thread on alternatives to the current system. see what you think. also try Stephen Hulme at www.omo.co.nz regards raf -------------------------- -----Original Message----- From: "Aaron" Date: Sun, 5 Oct 2008 14:44:23 To: Subject: [LE] NZ economic analysis _______________________________________________ LE-Members mailing list LE-Members at wji.com http://list.wji.com/mailman/listinfo/le-members From kevin_enviro at hotmail.com Sun Oct 5 02:47:38 2008 From: kevin_enviro at hotmail.com (Kevin Moore) Date: Sun, 5 Oct 2008 06:47:38 +0000 Subject: [LE] NZ economic analysis In-Reply-To: <00b201c9268b$e51136b0$0201a8c0@aaron> References: <00b201c9268b$e51136b0$0201a8c0@aaron> Message-ID: Quick summary: The last I read NZ debt level is higher per capita that the US. NZ imports a greater % oif its oil that the US. NZ government budgets on oil at around $70 a barrel whether it is $90 or $140 a barrel. Trade imbalance varies a lot throughout the year but on average NZ spends approximate 1 billion a month more than it earns. Most farmers culled a lot of stock due to last summer's drought, so are entering thr spring with very low stock numbers. Implosion coming soon. Helen and company have done a great job in sabotaging the economy. but don't expect anything different from any of the others. K Survivors know the truth about energy, food and the environment, and are preparing for the meltdown. Perishers don't know the truth, or don't care, and still believe the system will provide, even as it starts to collapse. From: utr at raglan.net.nzTo: le-members at list.wji.comDate: Sun, 5 Oct 2008 14:44:23 +1300Subject: [LE] NZ economic analysis It's great to read the excellent economic analysis that comes out of the US alternative media but I'm wondering if anyone knows of someone in New Zealand who is able to discuss the state of the New Zealand economy in the same way that Mike Whitney on Information Clearing House does (for instance) . The recent events in the US financial markets and the their impact on the average citizen comes as no surprise since US writers have done such an excellent job in outlining the problems over there. It's frustrating though that I'm actually less informed about my own country and don't know, for instance, how much debt local banks are carrying, how much of that is in sub prime mortgages and just how close to a meltdown we actually are. I know this is not strictly on topic (although the meltdown of the national economy will probably provide fertile ground for LE) but I thought someone around here might be able to help me out Aaron _________________________________________________________________ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://list.wji.com/pipermail/le-members/attachments/20081005/3a727de5/attachment.html From manning at kapiti.co.nz Sun Oct 5 03:37:21 2008 From: manning at kapiti.co.nz (Lowell Manning) Date: Sun, 5 Oct 2008 20:37:21 +1300 Subject: [LE] NZ economic analysis In-Reply-To: References: <00b201c9268b$e51136b0$0201a8c0@aaron> Message-ID: <30668888-B8C8-4743-9C46-9E784B4B63EE@kapiti.co.nz> Hi Kevin, As at end March the NZ total debt was about $413 billion made up of $273b domestic Credit and $140b in accumulated current account deficits. That indeed makes NZ in terms of GDP ($178b) one of the most indebted countries in the developed world. Every year for each of the past 30 years or more we have borrowed the entire nominal increase in GDP for that year in the form of the current account deficit. There is little danger of implosion in New Zealand though, but just like other countries especially US, the deficits and the borrowing mean an ongoing shift , in the form of unearned (interest) income, of the nation's wealth to the holders of bank deposits. In aggregate those in the productive economy are becoming poorer while those in the investment sector are becoming richer, literally by about NZ$30b in the year ended March 2008. The current turmoil in the financial sector in NZ is just a blip in a much broader process. New Zealand is, despite the debt loading, has nowhere near the problems faced in the US that have been caused by rampant greed and fraud on a massive scale. Instead, the foreseeable future here is an ongoing perceptible decline in the real living standards of ordinary people. Within the orthodox financial system the transfer of wealth from poor to rich can be corrected ONLY by massive taxation of the investment sector to create an equal and opposite monetary flow from the investment sector to the productive sector, say roughly $25billion in the year ended March 2008 Far and away the best solution is simply to remove interest on deposits. The key to reform and economic survival is to provide a mechanism where inflation in the investment sector and inflation in the productive sector are matched. Removing interest on deposits through statutory intervention will do that instantly. Otherwise, over time we will all become economic slaves in our own land. Cheers, Lowell On 5/10/2008, at 7:47 PM, Kevin Moore wrote: > Quick summary: > > The last I read NZ debt level is higher per capita that the US. > > NZ imports a greater % oif its oil that the US. NZ government > budgets on oil at around $70 a barrel whether it is $90 or $140 a > barrel. > > Trade imbalance varies a lot throughout the year but on average NZ > spends approximate 1 billion a month more than it earns. > > Most farmers culled a lot of stock due to last summer's drought, so > are entering thr spring with very low stock numbers. > > Implosion coming soon. > > Helen and company have done a great job in sabotaging the economy. > but don't expect anything different from any of the others. > > K > > Survivors know the truth about energy, food and the environment, > and are preparing for the meltdown. > Perishers don't know the truth, or don't care, and still believe > the system will provide, even as it starts to collapse. > > > From: utr at raglan.net.nz > To: le-members at list.wji.com > Date: Sun, 5 Oct 2008 14:44:23 +1300 > Subject: [LE] NZ economic analysis > > It's great to read the excellent economic analysis that comes out > of the US alternative media but I'm wondering if anyone knows of > someone in New Zealand who is able to discuss the state of the New > Zealand economy in the same way that Mike Whitney on Information > Clearing House does (for instance) . > > The recent events in the US financial markets and the their impact > on the average citizen comes as no surprise since US writers have > done such an excellent job in outlining the problems over there. > It's frustrating though that I'm actually less informed about my > own country and don't know, for instance, how much debt local banks > are carrying, how much of that is in sub prime mortgages and just > how close to a meltdown we actually are. > > I know this is not strictly on topic (although the meltdown of the > national economy will probably provide fertile ground for LE) but I > thought someone around here might be able to help me out > > Aaron > > _______________________________________________ > LE-Members mailing list > LE-Members at wji.com > http://list.wji.com/mailman/listinfo/le-members -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://list.wji.com/pipermail/le-members/attachments/20081005/718049c8/attachment-0001.html From elinwood at westnet.com.au Sun Oct 5 04:37:49 2008 From: elinwood at westnet.com.au (Ella Linwood) Date: Sun, 05 Oct 2008 18:37:49 +1000 Subject: [LE] Wikipedia entry for Living Economies/Living Economics Message-ID: <20081005084327.C62F22BEC1F@hosted01.westnet.com.au> Allan wrote re a Wikipedia entry: >I'd suggest it's an excellent idea .. >So, if anyone is interested in Living Economies being widely recognised as a concept, and having a widely understood meaning, I would suggest having a Wikipedia entry on Living Economies is vital. I was very interested to receive your comments. In addition to recognition as a concept I repeat what I said about the value that comes from related resource links for those searching. (eg, links to le.org.nz, Transition Towns, books and articles). Despite what you say about ?only? being an observer and a earner here, I would much rather hear the views of someone who identifies in the way you are, than with someone who insists that they have the full picture. I welcome whatever you have to say on the subject of the content and/or process of going about a Wikipedia entry. You wrote: >The other beauty of Wikipedia, as I understand it, is that it is continuously peer-reviewed and open to public challenge - so the definition of it would ultimately not be yours and your partners, nor any other individuals, but a definition generally acceptable to those with an interest in the area. I have listened twice to a radio interview with the founder of Wikipedia so do know this, but I was being provocative due to the earlier lack of (on topic) response after I sought to canvas views on the subject. I wanted the subject to begin in an open way, and for the task not be left for a small group to run off and surprise others with, despite the ability to be amended later. I'd like even a few people to participate in this discussion, however with no comment as yet from the very busy people quite central to LE in NZ-Ao, I'm not sure what people think about my proposal (A) for the initiation of the entry to be discussed and possibly begun at the upcoming annual conference. Failing that, proposal B would be to start an egroup ? which could then become later an aspect of the Wikipedia peer-review process. As I'm sensing a reluctance inside myself to hold forth with my own views on how I would define Living Economics, and which links and resources I would point to, I think that it would be easier for others too, to run their ideas past a much smaller group of people who have made a deliberate choice to be there. This would help achieve completion, rather than distraction. ??? proposal A, B, and/or other ???? Ella -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://list.wji.com/pipermail/le-members/attachments/20081005/e95ab5b3/attachment.html From elinwood at westnet.com.au Sun Oct 5 04:59:52 2008 From: elinwood at westnet.com.au (Ella Linwood) Date: Sun, 05 Oct 2008 18:59:52 +1000 Subject: [LE] Population Growth and Climate change discussion Message-ID: <20081005085949.A77F42BEFFD@hosted01.westnet.com.au> I have sent this subject title, not because I have anything to say right now, but because I think that it is helpful that the subject title reflects the discussion. I may send something on this in response to those who have been speaking on this, but haven't time right now. cheers, Ella Anton Presupposing keeping alive only one fifth of the world's population must be deemed ethically irrelevant to any definition of Living economics. The injustice inherent in the present so-called economic system is not caused by huge population numbers but by the huge political power wielded by a tiny unelected elite. The only economic system whose definition starts by presupposing the death of four fifths of the population would be more dead than Living. Forget demography; it only came to such prominence on today's agenda because Rockefeller paid for the research that put it there and, we can easily guess at the motives. Of course half or more of the population will soon perish, because certain elite owners of capital have decided that letting the other half die from hunger, war, pestilence or loss of habitat is more profitable (financially) than letting them live. Banking on half or more of humanity getting out of the way is no basis for any Living Economics. Having got that red herring out of the way, we can get on with formulating its real basis. And it is the automatic alchemical transformation 1) of time into money and 2) of money into political power, that an elite must then wield, that is what Living Economics should make impossible. In a word, abolishing monopoly capitalism and all its attendant sustainable stupidities, is the aim, the means and the result of Living Economics, the precise mecanisms being up for discussion at any moment in time & space, such as the spending into free circulation of public money, spent on real goods & services, meaning it be issued at zero interest and not created ex nihilo by private banks and then bought & sold like merchandise, et cetera. Yours in damp & foggy Brittany, Anton Pinschof. PS: whether or not an Albert Brtlett was the greatest thinker of our time, I have never heard of him. Were I to be labelled a great thinker and asked to pontificate, I could think of many more evident truths to proclaim such as, Justice & Security & Prosperity & Self-government are the best ways to a sustainable population level. I have been criticised for not being sufficiently exact. I said previously that any activity involving the use of electricty is, by definition, unsustainable. That was meant to indicate that use of electricity within mainstrseam culture [by households, commerce and industry or municipalities for lighting, heating, powering electric motors, electroplating, electromagnets and everything connected with running computers or information technology] is unsustanable, whether the electricity is generated by burning coal, burning oil, burning natural gas, nuclear, photovoltaic, wind or wave energy. No means of generating electricity is infinitely sustainable, though some forms of generation would be expected to have a longer life and cause less damage than others. i.e. phovoltaic could be regarded as semi-sustainable until the materails degrade, wind until the bearings wear out, hydro until silting behind the dam renders the system inoperable etc. Most analysts conveniently ignore the cabon debt incurred during manufacture and the need for maintenance and replacement when promoting so-called alternative systems. Many incur such massive CO2 debts during manifacture they never repay their CO2 debt to the environment. In most so-called civilised countries the burning of fossil fuels (particuallry coal) is the prime source of energy for powering grids. That is particularly true of Australia, China, the US etc. Continuation along the present path of the burning of fossil fuels is one the fastest routes possible to complete death of the planet via abrupt climate change. Our current way of living, depending on location and lifestyle, involves using energy at anything up to 1000 times the rate we should be using energy, and generating massive quantites of pollution. It is totally unsustanable and will come to an end fairly soon. Any proposal for a Living Economy based on even 10% of current energy use is unsustanable, though it may push out the horizon for abrupt climate change by a few years. We simply do not know. But Dr Jim Hansen and his team at NASA have categorically stated that we should be working toward 'Agenda 350', i.e. 350ppm CO2 if we are to have any chance of preventing a runaway greenhouse effect for the next generation. We are currently at around 390ppm and doing next to nothing to prevent greenhosue gas emissions accelerating, (the 'more population, more roads, expansion of airports, get the coal out of the ground a burn it as quickly as possible' agendas of most political parties) let alone actually doing anything to reduce emissions. I trust the above clarifies. Kind regards Kevin I am simply pointing out that prior to the Industrial Revolution and prior to industrial argriculture we had Living Economies. What we have now is an economy of abuse and death that is totally unsustanable and is killing the planet -though most people in Western nations fail to recognise that we live in a culture of abuse and death because they fail to connect the dots -indeed, have been carefully trained by the system and its all its agents to remain uninformed and to not connect the dots! Neuro-linguistic programming is a very, very powerful tool in the wrong hands! Not only is the dominant culture killing the planet, but it is also 'killing' the efforts of people such as the LE group who earnestly to try to make a future for the next generation. One of the main reasons this continuing dire state of affairs is able to be maintained by the system is because most people in Western societies are entirely detached from the natural world that makes their lives possible. Under such circumstances it will only when the industrial system fails they will realise the extent to which they have been lied to and misled. Fortunately the dominant economic system is in the process of dying, so your suggestion 'Perhaps you should start a new group to run in parellel to LE? It could be called Dying Economies :-)' is entirely unnecessary . [] I personally would be very surprised if current economic arrangements can be maintianed for more than another year or two. Having spent the past decade trying to wake up those who slumber through peak oil and environmental collapse, I have no interest in further activsm or formation of groups. Very soon it will be a fight for survival for most people in Western nations (as is already the case throughout most of the rest of the world). Of course the whole purpose of warning people about what is on its way is simply a form of humanism -trying to reduce the overall degree of suffering that people will have to endure. However, at this late stage in the game I am under no illusions: ignorance and complacency will undoubtedly rule to the bitter end. What people now have the very simple choice of becoming informed and making appropriate prepartions, therrby increasing their chances of survival, or not. The great irony is that the more people who perish in the first round oif die-ff, the easier it will be for those who remain. Profssor Albert Bartlett said it all in his absolutley brilliant lecture 'Arithmentic, Population and Energy' (very easily found by Internet search if anyone has not seen it). I doubt that anyone will ever improve on what Professor Bartlett said in that lecture. Kind regards Kevin At 01:17 PM 3/10/2008, you wrote: Take care folks, Having just spent months studying the English economic history from 1300-1800, I wouldn't go overboard with its "Living Economy" Except possibly for a period towards the end of the 15th century when the population was still very low after having been halved by plague and pestilence, for most people life was a real struggle for survival. In fact, Raj is right, they were dying economies rather than living ones. About half the children died by age 10 and the average life expectancy was in the low 30's, ( as low as 25 in London which was a veritable people eater) The Living Economies promoted by the LE group has little in keeping with pre-industrial England. Cheers, Lowell Manning ou have hit the nail on the head Lowell. The death rate was very close to the birth rate, so there was very little population growth. The population of the world was well below 1 billion for century after century, and would have remained below 1 billion had it not been for the unsustainable use of coal, and then subsequently oil and natural gas. Now we are on gross overshoot (check the work of Catton, who calculates that overshoot commenced around 1860). Depending on the estimate of how many people can be fed by sustanable agriculture (best analysis indicates between 0.5 billion and 1.5 billion) we need around 5 billion to perish before we can even contemplate establishing a truly sustainable society. Much of the debate does depend on whether we intend to devote all the resources of the planet to feeding people, or whether we are prepared to share the planet with millions of other species that have as much right to life as humans, such as elephants, tigers, orang-utans etc. Most of the data I have seen lately suggests 'we' intend to wipe out most other life forms by habitat destruction and global warming. The majority of amphibians are perilously close to extinction, as are numerous mammals and birds. Of course human population control is a taboo subject in most quarters, which is why debates usually never get anywhere. So nature is going to deal with the human population overshoot in ways which will not be pleasant. Regards Kevin P.S. Have you actually seen/read the Albert Bartlett lecture? There really is little point in continuing the debate if you have not. At 07:22 PM 3/10/2008, you wrote: I think that estimates of the human carrying capacity of the earth are all very much back of the napkin. It is however clear that we have been behaving highly inefficiently both with current solar energy and fossil fuels. We are simply dominators and destroyers. We need less people in order for other life to continue. We need less people because we are out of balance with all other life on earth. How many less depends on how efficient we can become and how prepared we are to govern our appetites. Somehow we must stop being dominators and destroyers otherwise no amount of population reduction will make any difference. Energy and ethical failure has given us too much leverage. There appear to be physical solutions to many of the problems that we have caused. It is the ethical, cultural and spiritual solutions that are failing us. One important thing is to cultivate a more healthy relationship with death. Perishing or surviving? I will be perishing anyway. Bryan At 11:51 AM 4/10/2008, you wrote: Kevin Your forecast collapse of society may or may not happen when or how you believe. Our ability to forecast is woeful even with our amazing computational resources. But death has always been the one certainty we can all rely on. I think Living Economies is all about developing and promoting living systems whether we have a population of 6 bln or 6m. Perhaps you should start a new group to run in parellel to LE? It could be called Dying Economies :-) Blessings Raf -------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://list.wji.com/pipermail/le-members/attachments/20081005/d81a87da/attachment-0001.html -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 204fbc7.jpg Type: application/octet-stream Size: 1554 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://list.wji.com/pipermail/le-members/attachments/20081005/d81a87da/attachment-0001.obj -------------- next part -------------- From deirdre.kent at gmail.com Sun Oct 5 16:51:20 2008 From: deirdre.kent at gmail.com (Deirdre Kent) Date: Mon, 6 Oct 2008 09:51:20 +1300 Subject: [LE] NZ economic analysis In-Reply-To: <00b201c9268b$e51136b0$0201a8c0@aaron> References: <00b201c9268b$e51136b0$0201a8c0@aaron> Message-ID: Yes I read Mike Whitney too on The Smirking Chimp. I only wish Bernard Lietaer did a blog. I am astonished that so many countries are now legislating for deposit insurance including Germany. Bernard Hickey was on Radio NZ this morning advocating NZ followed suit I guess this means that instead of a run on the bank we have a run on the government insurance scheme? But at least fewer people are aware so the panic will be less.. Deirdre 2008/10/5 Aaron > It's great to read the excellent economic analysis that comes out of the > US alternative media but I'm wondering if anyone knows of someone in New > Zealand who is able to discuss the state of the New Zealand economy in the > same way that Mike Whitney on Information Clearing House does (for instance) > . > > The recent events in the US financial markets and the their impact on the > average citizen comes as no surprise since US writers have done such an > excellent job in outlining the problems over there. It's frustrating though > that I'm actually less informed about my own country and don't know, for > instance, how much debt local banks are carrying, how much of that is in sub > prime mortgages and just how close to a meltdown we actually are. > > I know this is not strictly on topic (although the meltdown of the > national economy will probably provide fertile ground for LE) but I thought > someone around here might be able to help me out > > Aaron > > _______________________________________________ > LE-Members mailing list > LE-Members at wji.com > http://list.wji.com/mailman/listinfo/le-members > > -- Deirdre Kent Plan as if Peak oil and Climate Change really matter! http://www.transitionaotearoa.org.nz http://ranuiorchard.blogspot.com (property for sale) My Skype name is waikanae 202 Otaki Gorge Road RD2 Otaki New Zealand 5582 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://list.wji.com/pipermail/le-members/attachments/20081005/967ac3c3/attachment.html From kevin_enviro at hotmail.com Sun Oct 5 18:50:02 2008 From: kevin_enviro at hotmail.com (Kevin Moore) Date: Sun, 5 Oct 2008 22:50:02 +0000 Subject: [LE] NZ economic analysis In-Reply-To: References: <00b201c9268b$e51136b0$0201a8c0@aaron> Message-ID: The present meltdown is as much linked to the peaking of the oil supply as the fraudulent banking system. No growth in energy supply = no growth in economic activity. For those who have not seen it, Robert's latest below is an indication of the ineptitude/corruption of politicians when it comes to energy. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QTDgYIWu0nAOilcrash.com on Campbell live March 05 Survivors know the truth about energy, food and the environment, and are preparing for the meltdown. Perishers don't know the truth, or don't care, and still believe the system will provide, even as it starts to collapse. Date: Mon, 6 Oct 2008 09:51:20 +1300From: deirdre.kent at gmail.comTo: utr at raglan.net.nzCC: le-members at list.wji.comSubject: Re: [LE] NZ economic analysis Yes I read Mike Whitney too on The Smirking Chimp. I only wish Bernard Lietaer did a blog. I am astonished that so many countries are now legislating for deposit insurance including Germany. Bernard Hickey was on Radio NZ this morning advocating NZ followed suitI guess this means that instead of a run on the bank we have a run on the government insurance scheme? But at least fewer people are aware so the panic will be less..Deirdre 2008/10/5 Aaron It's great to read the excellent economic analysis that comes out of the US alternative media but I'm wondering if anyone knows of someone in New Zealand who is able to discuss the state of the New Zealand economy in the same way that Mike Whitney on Information Clearing House does (for instance) . The recent events in the US financial markets and the their impact on the average citizen comes as no surprise since US writers have done such an excellent job in outlining the problems over there. It's frustrating though that I'm actually less informed about my own country and don't know, for instance, how much debt local banks are carrying, how much of that is in sub prime mortgages and just how close to a meltdown we actually are. I know this is not strictly on topic (although the meltdown of the national economy will probably provide fertile ground for LE) but I thought someone around here might be able to help me out Aaron_______________________________________________LE-Members mailing listLE-Members at wji.comhttp://list.wji.com/mailman/listinfo/le-members-- Deirdre KentPlan as if Peak oil and Climate Change really matter!http://www.transitionaotearoa.org.nzhttp://ranuiorchard.blogspot.com (property for sale)My Skype name is waikanae202 Otaki Gorge RoadRD2 OtakiNew Zealand 5582 _________________________________________________________________ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://list.wji.com/pipermail/le-members/attachments/20081005/8a181519/attachment.html From kevin_enviro at hotmail.com Sun Oct 5 19:49:10 2008 From: kevin_enviro at hotmail.com (Kevin Moore) Date: Sun, 5 Oct 2008 23:49:10 +0000 Subject: [LE] NZ economic analysis In-Reply-To: <30668888-B8C8-4743-9C46-9E784B4B63EE@kapiti.co.nz> References: <00b201c9268b$e51136b0$0201a8c0@aaron> <30668888-B8C8-4743-9C46-9E784B4B63EE@kapiti.co.nz> Message-ID: I beg to differ Lowell. The real problem we face is not a financial crisis. The current financial turmoil is just a symptom of the real problems and is a smokescreen to detract attention from the real problems. The greatest problem in the short term is that we are in the process of falling off the Energy Return On Energy Invested cliff. Throughout most of the 20th century we experienced EROEI in the range 50:1 to 20:1. Towards the end of the 20th century it had fallen to the range 20:1 to 3:1, and it continues to fall by the day. Indeed, we should not actually use the word problem, since a problem has a solution. We are in a predicament for which there is no solution, other than a masive powerdown. We can either prepare for powerdown, or not. But making no preparations for powerdown will not prevent it occuring! Anyione who thinks we can power a complex society when the EROEI falls to the range 10:1 down to 2:1 clearly does not understand the stage we have reached as an industrial society. Over the next few years we will see a more or less complete reversal of the Industrial Revolution. The problem is that, whereas the Industrial Revolution occured over a period of 100-200 years (depending on location), the unravelling will occur over 15 years (or perhaps even less). Most of the things people take for granted at the moment, everything from investment banking to industrialised agriculture to supermarkets will become impossible to sustain once the EROEI falls below a critical level (probably around 5:1). The exact timing cannot be predicted, but the final result most definitely can. If we attempt to stave off the inevitable collapse by burning low grade coal deposits (practically all the high grade coal that ever was has already be burnt) all we will manage ot do is bring forward Abrupt Climate Change. I think it was Schuppennhauer who said of an idea that is contrary to that of the dominant culture: First it is ridiculed, then it is oppossed, then it is accepted as an obvious truth. Regards Kevin Survivors know the truth about energy, food and the environment, and are preparing for the meltdown. Perishers don't know the truth, or don't care, and still believe the system will provide, even as it starts to collapse. CC: utr at raglan.net.nz; le-members at list.wji.comFrom: manning at kapiti.co.nzSubject: Re: [LE] NZ economic analysisDate: Sun, 5 Oct 2008 20:37:21 +1300To: kevin_enviro at hotmail.com; s.deruyter at callsouth.net.nz Hi Kevin, As at end March the NZ total debt was about $413 billion made up of $273b domestic Credit and $140b in accumulated current account deficits. That indeed makes NZ in terms of GDP ($178b) one of the most indebted countries in the developed world. Every year for each of the past 30 years or more we have borrowed the entire nominal increase in GDP for that year in the form of the current account deficit. There is little danger of implosion in New Zealand though, but just like other countries especially US, the deficits and the borrowing mean an ongoing shift , in the form of unearned (interest) income, of the nation's wealth to the holders of bank deposits. In aggregate those in the productive economy are becoming poorer while those in the investment sector are becoming richer, literally by about NZ$30b in the year ended March 2008. The current turmoil in the financial sector in NZ is just a blip in a much broader process. New Zealand is, despite the debt loading, has nowhere near the problems faced in the US that have been caused by rampant greed and fraud on a massive scale. Instead, the foreseeable future here is an ongoing perceptible decline in the real living standards of ordinary people. Within the orthodox financial system the transfer of wealth from poor to rich can be corrected ONLY by massive taxation of the investment sector to create an equal and opposite monetary flow from the investment sector to the productive sector, say roughly $25billion in the year ended March 2008 Far and away the best solution is simply to remove interest on deposits. The key to reform and economic survival is to provide a mechanism where inflation in the investment sector and inflation in the productive sector are matched. Removing interest on deposits through statutory intervention will do that instantly. Otherwise, over time we will all become economic slaves in our own land. Cheers, Lowell On 5/10/2008, at 7:47 PM, Kevin Moore wrote: Quick summary: The last I read NZ debt level is higher per capita that the US. NZ imports a greater % oif its oil that the US. NZ government budgets on oil at around $70 a barrel whether it is $90 or $140 a barrel.Trade imbalance varies a lot throughout the year but on average NZ spends approximate 1 billion a month more than it earns. Most farmers culled a lot of stock due to last summer's drought, so are entering thr spring with very low stock numbers. Implosion coming soon. Helen and company have done a great job in sabotaging the economy. but don't expect anything different from any of the others. K Survivors know the truth about energy, food and the environment, and are preparing for the meltdown. Perishers don't know the truth, or don't care, and still believe the system will provide, even as it starts to collapse. From: utr at raglan.net.nzTo: le-members at list.wji.comDate: Sun, 5 Oct 2008 14:44:23 +1300Subject: [LE] NZ economic analysis It's great to read the excellent economic analysis that comes out of the US alternative media but I'm wondering if anyone knows of someone in New Zealand who is able to discuss the state of the New Zealand economy in the same way that Mike Whitney on Information Clearing House does (for instance) . The recent events in the US financial markets and the their impact on the average citizen comes as no surprise since US writers have done such an excellent job in outlining the problems over there. It's frustrating though that I'm actually less informed about my own country and don't know, for instance, how much debt local banks are carrying, how much of that is in sub prime mortgages and just how close to a meltdown we actually are. I know this is not strictly on topic (although the meltdown of the national economy will probably provide fertile ground for LE) but I thought someone around here might be able to help me out Aaron _______________________________________________ LE-Members mailing list LE-Members at wji.com http://list.wji.com/mailman/listinfo/le-members _________________________________________________________________ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://list.wji.com/pipermail/le-members/attachments/20081005/2653f105/attachment-0001.html From kevin_enviro at hotmail.com Sun Oct 5 20:36:27 2008 From: kevin_enviro at hotmail.com (Kevin Moore) Date: Mon, 6 Oct 2008 00:36:27 +0000 Subject: [LE] NZ economic analysis Message-ID: Hi again Lowell, Just bear in mind that the US economy was in crisis in the year 2000 and the Dow was falling long before 9/11. Dot.com bubble and all that. I suggest that the orchestrated 9/11 events, the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, and the lowering of interest rates that caused the so-called sub-prime meltdown were all actions in repsonse to the haemorrhaging that was going on during 1999-2001, and were all a delayed consequence of US oil extraction peaking in 1970-71, together with the decoupling of the US dollar from gold etc. of the same era. Regards Kevin Survivors know the truth about energy, food and the environment, and are preparing for the meltdown. Perishers don't know the truth, or don't care, and still believe the system will provide, even as it starts to collapse. From: manning at kapiti.co.nzSubject: Re: [LE] NZ economic analysisDate: Mon, 6 Oct 2008 13:16:01 +1300To: kevin_enviro at hotmail.com Hi again I generally agree with what you say, but oil is NOT the cause of the present 'crisis'. That is has been created almost exclusively by greedy crooks using disproportionate political and financial clout for their own selfish gain - a privatised financial and monetary system run amok. For what it's worth, I've been saying for several years now that climate change is progressing somewhere in the range 10 to 100 times as fast as the mainstream 'experts' have been acknowledging, more probably towards the upper end of the range. And all this has been happening during the recent short cycle MINIMUM in sunspot activity. Reports of significant areas of the arctic sea north of Siberia 'boiling' with what are apparently cathrate methane discharges is truly scary. Unfortunately human instinctive responses are far too primitive for the human psyche to accept the environmental problem and act appropriately when doing so goes against what many interpret (wrongly) as their own material advantage for survival. Collectively we have a psychological problem not an economic problem. Cheers Lowell On 6/10/2008, at 12:49 PM, Kevin Moore wrote: I beg to differ Lowell. The real problem we face is not a financial crisis. The current financial turmoil is just a symptom of the real problems and is a smokescreen to detract attention from the real problems. The greatest problem in the short term is that we are in the process of falling off the Energy Return On Energy Invested cliff. Throughout most of the 20th century we experienced EROEI in the range 50:1 to 20:1. Towards the end of the 20th century it had fallen to the range 20:1 to 3:1, and it continues to fall by the day. Indeed, we should not actually use the word problem, since a problem has a solution. We are in a predicament for which there is no solution, other than a masive powerdown. We can either prepare for powerdown, or not. But making no preparations for powerdown will not prevent it occuring! Anyione who thinks we can power a complex society when the EROEI falls to the range 10:1 down to 2:1 clearly does not understand the stage we have reached as an industrial society. Over the next few years we will see a more or less complete reversal of the Industrial Revolution. The problem is that, whereas the Industrial Revolution occured over a period of 100-200 years (depending on location), the unravelling will occur over 15 years (or perhaps even less). Most of the things people take for granted at the moment, everything from investment banking to industrialised agriculture to supermarkets will become impossible to sustain once the EROEI falls below a critical level (probably around 5:1). The exact timing cannot be predicted, but the final result most definitely can. If we attempt to stave off the inevitable collapse by burning low grade coal deposits (practically all the high grade coal that ever was has already be burnt) all we will manage ot do is bring forward Abrupt Climate Change. I think it was Schuppennhauer who said of an idea that is contrary to that of the dominant culture: First it is ridiculed, then it is oppossed, then it is accepted as an obvious truth. Regards Kevin Survivors know the truth about energy, food and the environment, and are preparing for the meltdown. Perishers don't know the truth, or don't care, and still believe the system will provide, even as it starts to collapse. CC: utr at raglan.net.nz; le-members at list.wji.comFrom: manning at kapiti.co.nzSubject: Re: [LE] NZ economic analysisDate: Sun, 5 Oct 2008 20:37:21 +1300To: kevin_enviro at hotmail.com; s.deruyter at callsouth.net.nz Hi Kevin, As at end March the NZ total debt was about $413 billion made up of $273b domestic Credit and $140b in accumulated current account deficits. That indeed makes NZ in terms of GDP ($178b) one of the most indebted countries in the developed world. Every year for each of the past 30 years or more we have borrowed the entire nominal increase in GDP for that year in the form of the current account deficit. There is little danger of implosion in New Zealand though, but just like other countries especially US, the deficits and the borrowing mean an ongoing shift , in the form of unearned (interest) income, of the nation's wealth to the holders of bank deposits. In aggregate those in the productive economy are becoming poorer while those in the investment sector are becoming richer, literally by about NZ$30b in the year ended March 2008. The current turmoil in the financial sector in NZ is just a blip in a much broader process. New Zealand is, despite the debt loading, has nowhere near the problems faced in the US that have been caused by rampant greed and fraud on a massive scale. Instead, the foreseeable future here is an ongoing perceptible decline in the real living standards of ordinary people. Within the orthodox financial system the transfer of wealth from poor to rich can be corrected ONLY by massive taxation of the investment sector to create an equal and opposite monetary flow from the investment sector to the productive sector, say roughly $25billion in the year ended March 2008 Far and away the best solution is simply to remove interest on deposits. The key to reform and economic survival is to provide a mechanism where inflation in the investment sector and inflation in the productive sector are matched. Removing interest on deposits through statutory intervention will do that instantly. Otherwise, over time we will all become economic slaves in our own land. Cheers, Lowell On 5/10/2008, at 7:47 PM, Kevin Moore wrote: Quick summary: The last I read NZ debt level is higher per capita that the US. NZ imports a greater % oif its oil that the US. NZ government budgets on oil at around $70 a barrel whether it is $90 or $140 a barrel.Trade imbalance varies a lot throughout the year but on average NZ spends approximate 1 billion a month more than it earns. Most farmers culled a lot of stock due to last summer's drought, so are entering thr spring with very low stock numbers. Implosion coming soon. Helen and company have done a great job in sabotaging the economy. but don't expect anything different from any of the others. K Survivors know the truth about energy, food and the environment, and are preparing for the meltdown. Perishers don't know the truth, or don't care, and still believe the system will provide, even as it starts to collapse. From: utr at raglan.net.nzTo: le-members at list.wji.comDate: Sun, 5 Oct 2008 14:44:23 +1300Subject: [LE] NZ economic analysis It's great to read the excellent economic analysis that comes out of the US alternative media but I'm wondering if anyone knows of someone in New Zealand who is able to discuss the state of the New Zealand economy in the same way that Mike Whitney on Information Clearing House does (for instance) . The recent events in the US financial markets and the their impact on the average citizen comes as no surprise since US writers have done such an excellent job in outlining the problems over there. It's frustrating though that I'm actually less informed about my own country and don't know, for instance, how much debt local banks are carrying, how much of that is in sub prime mortgages and just how close to a meltdown we actually are. I know this is not strictly on topic (although the meltdown of the national economy will probably provide fertile ground for LE) but I thought someone around here might be able to help me out Aaron _______________________________________________ LE-Members mailing list LE-Members at wji.com http://list.wji.com/mailman/listinfo/le-members _________________________________________________________________ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://list.wji.com/pipermail/le-members/attachments/20081005/353614a9/attachment-0001.html From kevin_enviro at hotmail.com Sun Oct 5 21:29:26 2008 From: kevin_enviro at hotmail.com (Kevin Moore) Date: Mon, 6 Oct 2008 01:29:26 +0000 Subject: [LE] Population Growth and Climate change discussion In-Reply-To: <20081005085949.A77F42BEFFD@hosted01.westnet.com.au> References: <20081005085949.A77F42BEFFD@hosted01.westnet.com.au> Message-ID: The link to Professor Albert Bartlett's brilliant lecture is below. Our greatest failure is the failure to understand the exponential function (which characterises constant compounding growth). Anyone who is serious about undestanding our current predicament needs to be very familar with this highly informative, thought provoking, and entertaining lecture. Regards Kevin Dr. Albert Bartlett: Arithmetic, Population and Energy 29 Aug 2004 | | View all related to Climate Change | Oil | Population | Resource DepletionView all related to Albert A. Bartlett The retired Professor of Physics from the University of Colorado in Boulder examines the arithmetic of steady growth, continued over modest periods of time, in a finite environment. These concepts are applied to populations and to fossil fuels such as petroleum and coal. VideoDr. Albert Bartlett: Arithmetic, Population and Energy (length 58): streamRead transcript: EnglishRead transcript: Fran?aisRead transcript: Espa?ol AudioDr. Albert Bartlett: Arithmetic, Population and Energy (length 57): download, streamRead transcript: EnglishRead transcript: Fran?aisRead transcript: Espa?ol Login or register to post comments 92522 reads Survivors know the truth about energy, food and the environment, and are preparing for the meltdown. Perishers don't know the truth, or don't care, and still believe the system will provide, even as it starts to collapse. Date: Sun, 5 Oct 2008 18:59:52 +1000To: le-members at list.wji.comFrom: elinwood at westnet.com.auSubject: [LE] Population Growth and Climate change discussionI have sent this subject title, not because I have anything to say right now, but because I think that it is helpful that the subject title reflects the discussion. I may send something on this in response to those who have been speaking on this, but haven't time right now.cheers,EllaAnton ?Presupposing keeping alive only one fifth of the world's population must be deemed ethically irrelevant to any definition of Living economics. The injustice inherent in the present so-called economic system is not caused by huge population numbers but by the huge political power wielded by a tiny unelected elite. The only economic system whose definition starts by presupposing the death of four fifths of the population would be more dead than Living. Forget demography; it only came to such prominence on today's agenda because Rockefeller paid for the research that put it there and, we can easily guess at the motives. Of course half or more of the population will soon perish, because certain elite owners of capital have decided that letting the other half die from hunger, war, pestilence or loss of habitat is more profitable (financially) than letting them live. Banking on half or more of humanity getting out of the way is no basis for any Living Economics. Having got that red herring out of the way, we can get on with formulating its real basis. And it is the automatic alchemical transformation 1) of time into money and 2) of money into political power, that an elite must then wield, that is what Living Economics should make impossible. In a word, abolishing monopoly capitalism and all its attendant sustainable stupidities, is the aim, the means and the result of Living Economics, the precise mecanisms being up for discussion at any moment in time & space, such as the spending into free circulation of public money, spent on real goods & services, meaning it be issued at zero interest and not created ex nihilo by private banks and then bought & sold like merchandise, et cetera. Yours in damp & foggy Brittany, Anton Pinschof. PS: whether or not an Albert Brtlett was the greatest thinker of our time, I have never heard of him. Were I to be labelled a great thinker and asked to pontificate, I could think of many more evident truths to proclaim such as, Justice & Security & Prosperity & Self-government are the best ways to a sustainable population level. I have been criticised for not being sufficiently exact. I said previously that any activity involving the use of electricty is, by definition, unsustainable. That was meant to indicate that use of electricity within mainstrseam culture [by households, commerce and industry or municipalities for lighting, heating, powering electric motors, electroplating, electromagnets and everything connected with running computers or information technology] is unsustanable, whether the electricity is generated by burning coal, burning oil, burning natural gas, nuclear, photovoltaic, wind or wave energy. No means of generating electricity is infinitely sustainable, though some forms of generation would be expected to have a longer life and cause less damage than others. i.e. phovoltaic could be regarded as semi-sustainable until the materails degrade, wind until the bearings wear out, hydro until silting behind the dam renders the system inoperable etc. Most analysts conveniently ignore the cabon debt incurred during manufacture and the need for maintenance and replacement when promoting so-called alternative systems. Many incur such massive CO2 debts during manifacture they never repay their CO2 debt to the environment. In most so-called civilised countries the burning of fossil fuels (particuallry coal) is the prime source of energy for powering grids. That is particularly true of Australia, China, the US etc. Continuation along the present path of the burning of fossil fuels is one the fastest routes possible to complete death of the planet via abrupt climate change. Our current way of living, depending on location and lifestyle, involves using energy at anything up to 1000 times the rate we should be using energy, and generating massive quantites of pollution. It is totally unsustanable and will come to an end fairly soon. Any proposal for a Living Economy based on even 10% of current energy use is unsustanable, though it may push out the horizon for abrupt climate change by a few years. We simply do not know. But Dr Jim Hansen and his team at NASA have categorically stated that we should be working toward 'Agenda 350', i.e. 350ppm CO2 if we are to have any chance of preventing a runaway greenhouse effect for the next generation. We are currently at around 390ppm and doing next to nothing to prevent greenhosue gas emissions accelerating, (the 'more population, more roads, expansion of airports, get the coal out of the ground a burn it as quickly as possible' agendas of most political parties) let alone actually doing anything to reduce emissions. I trust the above clarifies. Kind regards Kevin I am simply pointing out that prior to the Industrial Revolution and prior to industrial argriculturewe had Living Economies. What we have now is an economy of abuse and death that is totally unsustanable and is killing the planet -though most people in Western nations fail to recognise that we live in a culture ofabuse and death because they fail to connect the dots -indeed, have been carefully trained by the system and its all its agents to remain uninformed and to not connect the dots! Neuro-linguistic programming is a very, very powerful tool in the wrong hands! Not only is the dominant culture killing the planet, but it is also 'killing' the efforts of people such as the LE group who earnestly to try to make a future for the next generation. One of the main reasons this continuing dire state of affairs is able to be maintained by the system is because most people in Western societies are entirely detached from the natural world that makes their lives possible. Under such circumstances it will only when the industrial system fails they will realise the extent to which they have been lied to and misled. Fortunately the dominant economic system is in the process of dying, so your suggestion'Perhaps you should start a new group to run in parellel to LE? It could be called Dying Economies :-)' is entirely unnecessary . I personally would be very surprised if current economic arrangements can be maintianed for more than another year or two. Having spent the past decade trying to wake up those who slumber through peak oil and environmental collapse, I have no interest in further activsm or formation of groups. Very soon it will be a fight for survival for most people in Western nations (as is already the case throughout most of the rest of the world). Of course the whole purpose of warning people about what is on its way is simply a form of humanism -trying to reduce the overall degree of suffering that people will have to endure. However, at this late stage in the game I am under no illusions: ignorance and complacency will undoubtedly rule to the bitter end. What people now have the very simple choice of becoming informed and making appropriate prepartions, therrby increasing their chances of survival, or not. The great irony is that the more people who perish in the first round oif die-ff, the easier it will be for those who remain. Profssor Albert Bartlett said it all in his absolutley brilliant lecture 'Arithmentic, Population and Energy' (very easily found by Internet search if anyone has not seen it).I doubt that anyone will ever improve on what Professor Bartlett said in that lecture. Kind regards Kevin At 01:17 PM 3/10/2008, you wrote:Take care folks,Having just spent months studying the English economic history from 1300-1800, I wouldn't go overboard with its "Living Economy"Except possibly for a period towards the end of the 15th century when the population was still very low after having been halved by plague and pestilence, for most people life was a real struggle for survival. In fact, Raj is right, they were dying economies rather than living ones. About half the children died by age 10 and the average life expectancy was in the low 30's, ( as low as 25 in London which was a veritable people eater)The Living Economies promoted by the LE group has little in keeping with pre-industrial England.Cheers,Lowell Manning ou have hit the nail on the head Lowell. The death rate was very close to the birth rate,so there was very little population growth. The population of the world was well below 1 billion for century after century, and would have remained below 1 billion had it not been for the unsustainable use of coal, and then subsequently oil and natural gas. Now we are on gross overshoot (check the work of Catton, who calculates that overshoot commenced around 1860). Depending on the estimate of how many people can be fed by sustanable agriculture (best analysis indicates between 0.5 billion and 1.5 billion) we need around 5 billion to perish before we can even contemplate establishing a truly sustainable society. Much of the debate does depend on whether we intend to devote all the resources of the planet to feeding people, or whether we are prepared to share the planet with millions of other species that have as much right to life as humans, such as elephants, tigers, orang-utans etc. Most of the data I have seen lately suggests 'we' intend to wipe out most other life forms by habitat destruction and global warming. The majority of amphibiansare perilously close to extinction, as are numerous mammals and birds. Of course human population control is a taboo subject in most quarters, which is why debates usually never get anywhere. So nature is going to deal with the human population overshoot in ways which will not be pleasant. Regards Kevin P.S. Have you actually seen/read the Albert Bartlett lecture? There really is little point in continuing the debate if you have not. At 07:22 PM 3/10/2008, you wrote:I think that estimates of the human carrying capacity of the earth are all very much back of the napkin. It is however clear that we have been behaving highly inefficiently both with current solar energy and fossil fuels. We are simply dominators and destroyers. We need less people in order for other life to continue. We need less people because we are out of balance with all other life on earth. How many less depends on how efficient we can become and how prepared we are to govern our appetites.Somehow we must stop being dominators and destroyers otherwise no amount of population reduction will make any difference. Energy and ethical failure has given us too much leverage. There appear to be physical solutions to many of the problems that we have caused. It is the ethical, cultural and spiritual solutions that are failing us.One important thing is to cultivate a more healthy relationship with death. Perishing or surviving? I will be perishing anyway.Bryan At 11:51 AM 4/10/2008, you wrote:KevinYour forecast collapse of society may or may not happen when or how you believe. Our ability to forecast is woeful even with our amazing computational resources.But death has always been the one certainty we can all rely on.I think Living Economies is all about developing and promoting living systems whether we have a population of 6 bln or 6m.Perhaps you should start a new group to run in parellel to LE?It could be called Dying Economies :-)BlessingsRaf-------------------------- _________________________________________________________________ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://list.wji.com/pipermail/le-members/attachments/20081005/bca57600/attachment-0001.html -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 204fbc7.jpg Type: application/octet-stream Size: 1554 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://list.wji.com/pipermail/le-members/attachments/20081005/bca57600/attachment-0001.obj From kevin_enviro at hotmail.com Mon Oct 6 00:51:04 2008 From: kevin_enviro at hotmail.com (Kevin Moore) Date: Mon, 6 Oct 2008 04:51:04 +0000 Subject: [LE] Population Growth and Climate change discussion In-Reply-To: <20081005085949.A77F42BEFFD@hosted01.westnet.com.au> References: <20081005085949.A77F42BEFFD@hosted01.westnet.com.au> Message-ID: Dependence on Phantom Carrying Capacity Email this page Printer-friendly version RELATED NEWS: A crash course America?s self-inflicted societal collapse Review: 'The Long Descent' by John Michael Greer Population & environment - Aug 30 Published by Archived Dependence on Phantom Carrying Capacity by Chapter 3 of Overshoot: The Ecological Basis of Revolutionary Change(University of Illinois Press, 1980) Other Foundations, Other LimitsBecause the people of industrial nations did not recognize themselves as hunters and gatherers, they adhered to premises that were becoming more and more false. Franklin D Roosevelt spoke for all believers in those premises in the next-to-last sentence he ever wrote: "The only limits to our realization of tomorrow will be our doubts of today". Six years before Roosevelt's final expression of the optimistic faith that had become standard in the Age of Exuberance, one of the world's foremost demographers, P K Whelpton, had written that increasing numbers of people were only compatible with a rising standard of living when a nation either was still underpopulated, or could still call upon technological progress to offset the disadvantages of overpopulation. According to Whelpton, the United States in 1939 was already overpopulated. Technology, which had formerly enlarged carrying capacity, was growing in its power to do just the opposite - to increase per capita resource requirements, and thus aggravate the overload. Still, assumptions and expectations from the Age of Exuberance persisted for another generation, making more convulsive than it might have been the eventual change entailed by their obsolescence. Roosevelt died in 1945 without recognizing the end of exuberance. He was drafting a Jefferson Day radio address when a cerebral hemorrhage struck him down. His final sentence was: "Let us move forward with strong and active faith". Under his leadership, actions by the American nation (in concert with many others) had done much to renew the commitment of people to this exuberant spirit, delaying for another generation widespread comprehension of its obsolescence. Strong and active faith was characteristic of the age of apparent limitlessness; it had motivated nation-building and other impressively creative human activities. After World War II, for one more generation, people in many parts of the world would act from the illusion that the world's less fortunate could reap the benefits of an age of neo-exuberance by creating new nations in areas formerly held as colonies by one European power or another. But terminating colonialism could not renew limitlessness. Both imperialism and the subsequent graduation of the earliest and richest colonial components of empires into the status of new nations had been results, not causes, of the age of surplus carrying capacity. The achievements of Homo sapiens have always required foundations other than the self-assurance and determination to which Roosevelt appealed. Sheer will-power, important as it can be, cannot be implemented without material resources and physical energy, regardless of the institutional expectations of a people. As long ago as 1893, at a meeting of the American Historical Association, Frederick Jackson Turner insisted that "Behind institutions, behind constitutional forms and modifications, lie the vital forces that call these organs into life and shape them to meet changing conditions". In the special instance of American institutions, these vital forces had consisted very largely, Turner said, of the presence of free land and the continuous westward advancement of American settlement by European immigrants and their descendants into areas previously inhabited only by disregardable non-Europeans. When the land was filled up and no longer available at little or no cost, and when its inhabitants were no longer people who could be disregarded, institutions had to change. But persistent myths would delay institutional adaptations that were eventually inevitable. These obsolete myths would impede understanding of the real causes of change. No Longer HypotheticalHere was a characteristic instance of cultural lag: by the time a substantial number of people began to worry out loud about what to do "if" the world "eventually" were to become overloaded, it already was. In the 1960s many books and articles appeared which spoke of dire troubles ahead "unless" growth of population were halted, or "if" the rate of extraction of petroleum or other resources from the earth continued to double every N years. Some of this kind of literature had come out in the 1950s, and one emphatic treatise on the subject - William Vogt's Road to Survival - was published in 1948. The implication in nearly every one of these publications was that the dire troubles were still hypothetical, a possibility still avoidable, provided the right corrective measures were adopted in time. The purpose of most writers was to arouse people to accept or demand the necessary preventives before it was too late. Although some authors insisted that it was already later than people generally realized, few ventured to suggest (even in the 1970s) that, for the post-exuberant world, eventually had already come yesterday. The growth and progress upon which we looked back with such pride had committed mankind to living on a scale that exceeds the sustainable carrying capacity of this finite planet, and the leaders of nations continued to devote far more effort toward attempting to prolong overshoot than toward undoing it. Reluctance to face facts was driving us to make bad matters worse. The faster the present generation draws down the fossil energy legacy upon which persistently exuberant lifestyles now depend, the less opportunity posterity will have to live in anything like the same way or the same numbers. Yet most contemporary political proposals for solving problems of economic stagnation or inequity amount to plans for speeding up the rate of drawdown of non-renewable resources. Invisible AcreageThe truth of these statements is implicit in the concept of "ghost acreage". Georg Borgstrom, a food scientist at Michigan State University, devoted a whole chapter of his 1965 book, The Hungry Planet, to this subject. A number of nations have seemed to get away with exceeding the human carrying capacity of their own land, but Borgstrom pointed out that they had only been able to do so by drawing upon carrying capacity that was "invisible" - that is, located elsewhere on the planet. The food required by such a nation's population comes only partly from the harvest of "visible acreage" - farm and pasture land within the nation's borders. A very substantial fraction comes from net imports of food. Not all the imports come from other countries; some are obtained from the sea. Borgstrom therefore subdivided "ghost acreage" into two components, "trade acreage" and "fish acreage". By each phrase he simply expressed, in terms of land area, the additional farming that would have been needed to provide from internal sources the net portion of a nation's sustenance actually derived from sources outside its boundaries and in excess of its own carrying capacity. As we shall see, a third component must be recognized if we are to understand fully the part played by ghost acreage in the life of modern man. To see the importance of Borgstrom's two components, trade and fish acreage, let us consider two examples: Great Britain, a national ancestor of the United States, and Japan, a booming industrial giant in the Far East. By 1965 more than half of Britain's sustenance was coming from ghost acreage. If food could not be obtained from the sea (6.5%) or from other nations (48%), more than half of Britain would have faced starvation, or all British people would have been less than half nourished. Likewise, if Japan could not have drawn upon fisheries all around the globe and upon trade with other nations, two-thirds of her people would have been starving, or every Japanese citizen would have been two-thirds undernourished (which presumably means that nearly all might have died). Yet this was the most prosperous nation in the Orient, the one whose low birth rate supposedly exemplified Asia's hope of averting overpopulation. These densely populated nations had continued to exist and prosper only because, on top of their own intensive agriculture, they could harvest the oceans and could export non-agricultural products in ex-change for food from countries with agricultural surpluses. Accordingly, ghost-acreage-dependent countries like these were vulnerable to foreign efforts to manipulate their policies (such as the Arab oil embargo). They were also threatened by population growth in the food-exporting countries, for such growth would stem the flow of food exports they needed in order to survive. When there ceased to be agricultural surpluses anywhere, and when all nations became dependent on oceanic ghost acreage, population densities of a British or Japanese magnitude would be more obviously non-viable. In the meantime, Americans, Canadians, Australians, et al, habitually pointed to their own wheat surpluses and reassured themselves that they were a long way from being overpopulated. "Look at Japan", said their people, blinded still by the old pre-ecological paradigm: "much more heavily populated than we are, yet prospering". Space Age accomplishments at last brought some recognition that the earth must be considered as a unit. It is man's one habitat. This planet is an island, more absolutely than Japan or Britain. When Homo sapiens in the 1960s became able to "export" a few manufactured items from earth to the moon, to Mars, to Venus, et cetera, only new knowledge came back in exchange - there were no imports of foodstuffs. The knowledge increments were magnificent achievements, well worth pursuing; still, the terms of the exchange by which they were accomplished began to underscore the fact that mankind as a whole could not disregard overpopulation, as some component countries had continued to do when they outgrew the carrying capacities of their own territories. There was no "trade acreage" in outer space. "Fish acreage", if considered globally, could also be seen to provide only a shrinking reserve for the world's family of nations to fall back on. The earth's oceans are finite. In the 1970s the fish, whales, and other edible marine creatures were already being harvested in greater quantities than would permit a sustained yield. From over-fishing and from pollution, the seas were dying. Accordingly, various nations were becoming more overtly competitive in their use of this reserve. Some were compelled by circumstances to express such competitiveness in the form of territoriality. Human societies thus turned out to behave much in the manner of communal groups of other mammal species, when one group begins to suffer from encroachments by others upon resources it needs in order to sustain itself. A typical animal response to population pressure is to assert territorial claims and to exclude competitors from the claimed area. A number of nations unilaterally extended their claims to exclusive fishing. The original "three-mile limit" of national sovereignty over the seas became a "twelve-mile limit", and then various nations went on to extend their fishing claims out to fifty miles, or a hundred, or two hundred. The so-called Cod War between Britain and Iceland, and similar friction between the United States and Peru, were territorialist responses to the end of exuberance. These territorialist responses were becoming so universal that they compelled the United Nations to begin rewriting the law of the sea to institutionalize such marine claim-staking. Meanwhile, the United States unilaterally proclaimed a 200-mile fishing limit effective March 1 1977, and this severely pinched fish acreage-dependent Japan. On a November day in 1976, when talks began that were intended to lead to a bilateral North Pacific fisheries agreement between Japan and the US, thousands of banner-carrying Japanese took to the streets of Tokyo in protest. In a newspaper ad, the Japan Fisheries Association said the 200-mile limit off American shores could seriously restrict Japanese protein consumption, curtailing by as much as 44 percent the amount of fish that would be eaten in Japan. Importing from the PastThe onetime American shibboleth, "Freedom of the seas", had been an idea born in the Age of Exuberance. Post-exuberant overload was now depleting the world's resources and requiring even the United States to take such steps as fencing off a private fishing domain. But the predicament was global. Without knowing it, Homo sapiens faced a plight much like that of Japan when confronted with fish-depleted oceans. As an island in space, the world could not rely on imports from elsewhere; nevertheless, it was already heavily dependent upon imports from elsewhen. That we were importing from the past becomes clear when we logically extend Borgstrom's ghost acreage concept to include a third component. Technological progress had made mankind heavily dependent upon imports of energy from prehistoric sources. Man's use of fossil fuels has been another instance of reliance on phantom carrying capacity. The energy we obtain from coal, petroleum, and natural gas can be expressed as "fossil acreage" - the number of additional acres of farmland that would have been needed to grow organic fuels with equivalent energy content. Mankind originally did rely on organic fuels, chiefly wood. Wood was a renewable resource, though even in the world's once vast forests it grew in limited quantity. Access to vast but non-renewable deposits of coal and petroleum came to be mistaken by peoples and nations as an opportunity for permanently transcending limits set by the finite supplies of organic fuel. When fossil fuels had been depleted enough to make supplies of them precarious, insufficient, and increasingly expensive, proposals for making up the shortfall included various versions of "energy farming" - growing crops from which fuels could be derived. The acreage required for future energy plantations is an obvious measure of the phantom carrying capacity upon which fossil-fueled civilization had been depending. As we shall see in the next section of this chapter, re-expressing modern rates of energy use in ghost acreage terms enables us to recognize how seriously our hunting-and-gathering industrial civilization overshot the real (that is, permanent) carrying capacity of the planet's visible acreage. Everything human beings do requires energy. At the barest minimum, animals human in form but with no technology would have been converting in their own bodies some 2,000 to 3,000 kilocalories of chemical energy (from food) into heat in the course of a day's activity. With the mastery of fire and with the domestication of animals, additional energy came under human use, even before some of the energy from flowing water and moving air began to be harnessed for the conduct of human tasks. Fire extended man's range and man's diet, thereby enlarging the world's carrying capacity for our species. Use of this form of energy set early hominids apart from other animals that relied entirely on their own metabolism. Fire's heat, used directly, helped make us human; but, in time, Homo sapiens attained a kind of superhumanity by learning to convert the heat energy from fire into mechanical energy by means of various engines. Just before the Continental Congress gave the world a new nation to serve as the prime model of the exuberant way of life, James Watt devised for the world a practical engine for converting heat from fire into rotary motion, by means of steam pressure moving a piston in a cylinder and turning a crankshaft. The steam engine began to transform men into supermen. At first fueled sometimes with wood, later exclusively with coal, and still later largely with oil, these devices and their successors made available for the performance of an immense assortment of tasks the prodigious quantities of energy stored within the earth, in the transformed remains of organisms that lived millions of years ago. Man thus became uniquely differentiated from all other mammals by his ability to use solar energy that had reached the earth long before he existed - energy captured in prehistoric photosynthesis. A geological savings bank had been accumulating these deposits of fossil energy for hundreds of millions of years. The steam engine and various improved successors to it - gasoline, diesel, jet, and rocket engines - gave man the key to this geological bank. What marvels poured forth from the turning of that key! The energy expended in two decades by a vast labor force of Egyptians stacking up some 2,300,000 blocks of stone (each weighing about two and a half tons) to form the Great Pyramid of Cheops was less than the energy released in a few minutes by three stages of a Saturn V rocket propelling men toward the moon. Little wonder that the illusion of limitlessness was reinforced by space flights. In 1972, for example, the first Bangladesh head of state, Sheik Mujibur Rahman (destined for assassination within a few years by disillusioned constituents), pleaded for American aid for his newborn and frail nation, exclaiming, "If you Americans can put a man on the moon, you can do anything". It seemed so, but it was far from true. Fossil-fueled engines were to serve as the prime mover in launching the Industrial Revolution; they thereby brought about comprehensive reorganization of human societies. Industrialization compounded exuberance; James Watt was as much a revolutionary as Columbus had been. The apparent limitlessness of opportunities, was underscored by the availability of energy in such quantities, and at such unprecedentedly low cost per man-hour equivalent, that human slavery lost its economic value. When men very much wanted tasks accomplished but could not or would not pay a free worker's wage, enslaving other human beings used to be the only solution. Clever machinery and cheap, abundant energy broke this pattern, serving as a great emancipator - the more so as invention continued to widen the range of tasks in which power-driven apparatus could substitute for human hands. As we shall see, the "abundance" of this fossil energy was due to man's readiness to withdraw and spend it thousands of times faster than nature had deposited it in the earth's savings. And the energy from fossil fuels was cheap only because no workers had been paid (or slaves maintained) to grow the vegetation from which coal and oil had been formed. The cost of fossil energy, then, was determined essentially by the cost of extracting these fuels from storage. At the beginning of 1974, when oil prices had begun to rise sharply, a million kilocalories (equivalent to approximately one man-year of food-supported muscle power) cost only about $16 if obtained by burning 32 gallons of gasoline (at service station pump prices in the US). That amount of energy would have cost some thirteen times as much if obtained from burning a liquid derived from contemporary agriculture (such as corn oil, 52 gallons at $4 per gallon, retail). If gasoline and other fossil fuels had been thirteen times as costly, we would never have fallen into the trap of reorganizing our social systems around their abundant use. Our overcommitment to dependence on fossil acreage was the result of the temporarily low cost of energy from antiquity. Because the low cost was temporary, it was an unrealistic basis for a way of life. Within two eventful centuries of the time when James Watt started us substituting fossil energy for muscle power, per capita energy use in the United States reached a level equivalent to eighty or so ghost slaves for each citizen. The ratio remained much lower than that in many other parts of the world. But, dividing the energy content of total annual world fuel consumption by the annual rate of food-energy consumption in an active adult human body, the world average still worked out to the equivalent of about ten ghost slaves per person. Otherwise stated, the average human being, whatever he might have done in a day with his own unaided muscle power, could now do about ten times as much by using his bodily energy mainly to direct the activities of mechanical servants using energy derived from fossil fuel combustion (that is, from ghost acreage). More than nine-tenths of the energy used by Homo sapiens was now derived from sources other than each current year's crop of vegetation. Plants capture contemporary solar energy and produce combustible organic materials from inorganic substances. The fossil fuels, on the other hand, contain pre-historic solar energy, for they were geologically formed from organic materials produced by ancient photosynthesis. The exuberant way of life was now based, therefore, on a pattern of energy use that involved a high ratio between prehistoric energy and contemporary energy - a ratio that could hardly continue. Yet until the Arab oil embargo in 1973 this fact went almost unrecognized by news media, and there was little concern among the general public about the ratio's precariousness. Recognition of the social significance of physical energy remained almost nil among politicians and social scientists until depleted resources began failing to meet persistently exuberant demand. But in a book called Energy and Society, whose enormous importance was insufficiently realized when it was published just a decade after the end of World War II, Fred Cottrell of Miami University in Ohio made clear the fact that "man can exist only where he is able to replace the energy he uses up in the process of living. He must regularly be in control of energy equal to or in excess of this minimum. A permanent deficit makes life impossible." Full comprehension of the information and a thorough understanding of the reasoning in Cottrell's vital but neglected book would have shown the salience of Borgstrom's "ghost acreage" concept for the post-exuberant world. It was important to consider not just the food that keeps human bodies alive, but the energy of all kinds used by the mechanical extensions of man's bodily apparatus. Chapter 9 will explain why this was so important. For now, it is enough to be aware that, throughout the world, vast quantities of machinery driven by vast quantities of fossil energy had become indispensable for doing the things that had become part of human living during four centuries of exuberance. Precarious Way of LifeAny nation that realized its self-sufficiency had fallen to less than ten percent would almost certainly sense the precariousness of its existence. Borgstrom did not cite any nation whose visible acreage met as little as ten percent of its needs. In energy terms, however, the condition of the post-exuberant world had become precarious in just that way. The human species, through technological progress, had made itself more than ninety percent dependent on phantom carrying capacity - a term we must now define. Phantom carrying capacity means either the illusory or the extremely precarious capacity of an environment to support a given life form or a given way of living. It can be quantitatively expressed as that portion of a population that cannot be permanently supported when temporarily available resources become unavailable. Although the living generation did not realize that it was ninety percent redundant, the effects of dependence on phantom carrying capacity were beginning to be noticeable and disturbing. The reason for these effects remained unacknowledged, due to the continued grip of obsolete concepts on our thinking. Obsolete (that is, ecologically naive) concepts impaled the minds of those in high office as well as the man in the street. As late as the end of 1973, both the president of the United States and the chairman of the Senate Interior Committee proclaimed as a goal of American policy the attainment of "energy self- sufficiency" by 1980. If the expression meant anything at all, it had to mean (in Borgstrom's terms) a goal of deriving all energy used by Americans from visible acreage, none from trade acreage. But the living generation could not become really self-sufficient just by ending its dependence on trade acreage; this would only accelerate the drawdown of energy deposits hidden beneath the domestic (visible) acreage. To achieve independence from OPEC opportunists by this method meant inflicting upon American posterity a legacy of aggravated resource depletion. In short, energy independence was illusory so long as massive quantities of energy were still to be obtained from fossil sources. Neither the senator nor the president showed any understanding of the deep dependence of all modern civilization upon imports of energy from the prehistoric past. In 1970 American energy use amounted to the equivalent of approximately 58 barrels of oil per capita annually. Were it to become necessary to obtain all this energy from agricultural crops (that is, from contemporary solar income, the only basis for permanent "self-sufficiency") rather than principally from the earth's savings deposits, the acreage required can be calculated as follows. Suppose alcohol derived from corn were to be the standard fuel. From each bushel of corn, about 2.3 US gallons of alcohol could be produced. In 1970 the entire United States corn crop came to about 4.15 billion bushels; this would have yielded about 9.67 billion gallons of alcohol - if we had been willing to forgo exporting any of the corn, or eating any of it, or feeding any of it to livestock. Since each gallon of alcohol has heat value equivalent to about 0.7 gallons of gasoline, this means the entire 1970 corn crop, converted to alcohol, could have supplied less than 7 1/2 percent of that year's domestic demand for motor fuel! It would have supplied only 1.27 percent of total US energy consumption. Even the record corn crop tabulated in 1976 (just over 6 billion bushels ) would have supplied less than 2 percent. In other words, if we could miraculously increase corn yields about fifty fold, making 5,100 bushels grow on each tract of land now producing 100 bushels, we could eat our corn and have our fuel, too - free from dependence on depletable antiquity. Make the merely optimistic assumption that we could perpetually hope to harvest 100 bushels of corn per acre, using energy inputs no larger than the 31 gallons of gasoline equivalent per acre that a 1944 estimate said were required to drive the machinery used in modern farming. (Actually, the impressive rise in per-acre yields since 1952 up to a point where that 100 bushel figure is plausible has depended on further large energy subsidies in the form of heavy applications of synthetic fertilizers.) The energy cost of raising each 100 bushels of corn would amount, then, to the fuel derived from about 19 bushels. So the net fuel production would be based on no more than about 81 bushels per acre. Each acre would yield the net equivalent of almost 3 barrels of crude oil. To provide for the energy Americans were using in 1970 entirely by growing corn and converting it to alcohol, we would have needed just about 20 acres of good farmland per capita. But in 1970, the United States had just slightly more than five acres of farmland per capita - about half the nation's total area, and barely more than one-fourth of what it would take to meet American energy "requirements" from energy plantations converting contemporary solar energy into fuel. If all the farms in America had been devoted entirely to growing fuel-producing corn, and all could have yielded a net 3 barrels of crude-oil-equivalent per acre, the nation's human carrying capacity without ghost acreage would have been no more than 51 million persons. (It would have been appreciably less than that, actually, because presumably we would have wanted to use some of the farms to produce something to eat.) As a drawdown-dependent nation, the United States was thus already relying upon fossil acreage four times as extensive as its total visible farm acreage. Our concern for the incidental fact that an appreciable and growing fraction of that fossil acreage was overseas and under the control of potentially hostile peoples was permitted to overshadow the more permanently significant fact that fossil acreage anywhere, and under anyone's control, was non-renewable. We were living on four parts of phantom carrying capacity for every one part of permanent (real) carrying capacity. It should be clear, therefore, that the actual population of the United States had already overshot its carrying capacity measured by the energy-producing capability of visible American acreage. To achieve genuine self-sufficiency in energy by 1980, assuming a 1970 way of life but depending on visible acreage only, the population of this nation would have had to level off no later than 1880. So the exuberant lifestyles of modern Homo sapiens were far more precarious than people realized. They could be practiced only as long as it was possible to continue extracting enough fossil fuels to maintain a high ratio of ghost acreage to visible acreage. When two things put this high ratio in conspicuous jeopardy, some perceptive people began at last to sense the fact that continuation of the exuberant way of life was threatened. One signal was the build-up of pollution; accumulation of the combustion products from fossil fuels began to indicate that continued use in continuously increasing quantities posed real hazards to human health and survival - and to the health and survival of other organic species upon which humans depend. The other signal was increased difficulty of obtaining the fuels themselves; some of the most accessible deposits had been depleted, and some of the largest known remaining reserves were under the territories of nations not always eager to turn over such wealth to American or West European consumer nations - at least not without exacting a price that seemed exorbitant by standards forged in the Age of Exuberance. That age was over, and its standards were already obsolete. Because of cultural lag, their obsolescence would be only belatedly recognized. Meanwhile, prices would inevitably rise. Politicians and pundits, working from the old paradigm, would continue invoking merely fiscal explanations for this inflation, neglecting its ecological basis. Among its effects would be some loss of the emancipating influence of cheap energy. Opinion leaders would generally continue seeking political explanations for the erosion of freedom, and would continue neglecting the ecological pressure causing it. By scorning as mere "Arab blackmail" the second signal mentioned above (the increased difficulty of obtaining fuels), such minds insisted on remaining blind to a reality far more significant than its surface political manifestations. Solutions That Aggravate ProblemsMost of the world did not recognize the extent to which it was dependent on phantom carrying capacity in its use of fossil fuels. Non-recognition of dependence on invisible acreage, or the illusion of self-sufficiency, could lead to disaster, for actions based on illusions are inherently hazardous. Consider, for example, the consequences of imagining that the resources of finite oceans were limitless. The more dependent a given nation became on "fish acreage", the more it was driven to improve the technology of fishing or to increase the fraction of its labor force engaged in fishing. It needed to maximize its proficiency in harvesting food from the sea. The more fish it could take, the better its people could be supported - as long as there remained fish stocks to draw down. When the oceans seemed vast and fish stocks seemed unlimited, there were no inhibitions against perpetually increasing the annual catch. By the time the danger of destroying the resource became evident, the people who needed the fish were already present, and the nation's dependence on resource-destroying rates of harvest was already established. Only after a lapse of time would calamity overtake it. If a fish-dependent nation's rate of harvesting fish exceeded the sustained yield rate, the effects of the damage to world fish stocks would be spread (for the time being) among other fishing nations. Although only a fraction of the immediate damage would be felt by a particular fisheries-dependent nation, that damage-committing nation would get all the benefit of its own excessive harvest. Whenever the in-group directly and exclusively benefits from its own overuse of a shared resource but the costs of that overuse are "shared" by out-groups, then in-group motivation toward a policy of resource conservation (or sustained yield rates of harvesting) is undermined. In other words, competition for scarce resources is the enemy of self-restraint. This becomes especially so, as Garrett Hardin showed in a 1968 article in Science magazine, when scarcity becomes increasingly acute. Even so, in the case of "fish acreage", it was possible for substantial numbers of people both in the fish-dependent nations and in the more nearly food self-sufficient ones to see that a rate of harvesting in excess of the rate of replacement led to exhaustion of the resource in the long run, and could be advantageous only in the short run. Indeed, an appreciable fraction of the earth's human population was apparently beginning to grasp the sustained yield idea in regard to living resources such as fish or forests. Understanding a principle and abiding by it are not the same thing. Overfishing continued in the 1970s, from necessity. The need for food now prevented men from always exercising the self-restraint they might know was necessary to ensure food for posterity. Posterity doesn't vote, and doesn't exert much influence in the marketplace. So the living go on stealing from their descendants. Comprehension of the principle of sustained yield with respect to fish acreage has not prompted people to extend the idea very far into their thinking about other kinds of resources. Ghost acreage of the Carboniferous period was the resource base for "modern" living. In Asia, Japan was the nation most dependent upon such prehistoric photosynthesis. In Europe, Britain has been dependent on it longer than other nations. Americans were heavily dependent upon it, in spite of their huge expanse of visible acreage and their conspicuous agricultural surpluses. The more "modern" a nation had become, the more its way of life was based on importing energy from hundreds of millions of years ago. Yet so powerful was the old paradigm that it prevented most minds from even entertaining the thought that a replacement rate for fossil fuel deposits was as salient as the replacement rate for fish. We have overused fossil acreage far more than we have overfished the seas. Overfishing means harvesting fish faster than they replace themselves by reproduction and growth. The inevitable result of continued overharvesting is eventual exhaustion of the resource. If it had been thought that men were harvesting fish as much as 1,000 (or even 100) times faster than the fish could replace themselves, there would have been much alarm around the world already. By 1970, the worldwide ratio between our use of fossil fuels and the natural rate of their replacement by geological processes was more like 10,000 to 1. Yet, at least until 1973, neither the ratio nor even the concept of replacement as such had entered the thoughts of most of the world's ravenous users of prehistoric energy, imbued as they still were with the notion of limitlessness. For human minds shaped by the culture of exuberance, the closest approach to concern for a replacement rate in the realm of energy seemed to be the vague public awareness that continued geological exploration was constantly leading to discovery of additional deposits of fossil fuels. New discoveries would "replace" the known "reserves" mankind was continually depleting. Oil wells were known to run dry, but new wells were continually being "developed". The rate of discovery had no relation to the rate at which nature was laying down these deposits, but it looked like a rate of replacement. For a while it exceeded the rate of extraction (misleadingly called "production"), so the, illusion of a sustained yield felt almost plausible, even for a resource that, in principle, had to be exhaustible. Deceptive language supported this illusion. In the 1950s, however, in America's conterminous forty-eight states the discovery rate for petroleum deposits had peaked and turned downward. The downturn came in spite of improved technology for exploration, expanded geological knowledge, and intensified effort because only the less readily discoverable deposits remained to be found. When the "production" rate was less than the discovery rate, as it had been for several decades, the known "reserves" had been increasing from year to year (though the oil that existed in the world was not increasing). "Production" continued increasing even after the discovery rate began to decrease. The two curves crossed in 1961. Thereafter, even the superstitious notion that a rate of discovery somehow sufficed in lieu of an actual replacement rate could no longer support the illusion of sustained oil yields. Modern man misled himself in a number of ways. He made prodigal use of prehistoric ghost acreage to achieve illusory increases in "efficiency" in farming the visible acreage of the present. Cottrell showed in his book, for example, that much more energy was invested to raise fifty bushels per acre in wet-rice farming by mechanized methods in Arkansas than by hoe culture methods in Japan. The illusion that the Arkansas procedures were more "efficient" arose from the fact that less than two man-days of human labor per acre were involved there, as against ninety man-days in Japan. To achieve that saving of more than 88 man-days of human labor, however, the Arkansas farmer had to invest in tractor and truck fuel, electricity, and fertilizer, all involving energy that was equivalent to at least 800 additional man-days of effort. This energy extravagance would be even more flagrant if the accounting included the energy used in manufacturing, shipping, and maintaining the tractor, truck, electric pumping apparatus, and so on. Toward the end of 1973, when a no longer deniable shortage of petroleum was curtailing the use of automobiles in many countries, and was producing other unanticipated modifications of human activity, one American food distributor warned customers that food bills might be increased more than travel costs by the oil shortage. The distributor reported that the US Department of Agriculture had said some thirty percent of the nation's fuel consumption was used in growing food and conveying it to the consumer's table. What neither that distributor nor his customers seemed to recognize was that the figure cited implied that several times as much energy went into producing, processing, and distributing food as the food itself contained! In terms of "newspeak", the perverted language from George Orwell's dystopian novel, 1984, here was another inversion of meaning, similar to "war is peace" and "freedom is slavery". Fossil fuel use had enabled man to believe that "prodigality is efficiency". Under these thoughtways men continued at the close of the 1970s to imagine that the solution to energy problems was to improve the technology for locating deposits and for extracting combustible substances from nature's underground storage, or to increase the financial incentives for doing these things. It was as if a family whose members were living far beyond their current income should urge the head of the household to solve their problem of overspending by increasing his proficiency in filling out withdrawal slips at the bank. Itwas as if they were to commend rather than reprimand him for withdrawing more each week than the week before. Newspeak: "Extraction is production". Living on Ten EarthsA good estimate of the rate at which nature might be replacing the energy deposits man was withdrawing could have been easily calculated. One merely needed to know (1) the total weight of the earth's atmosphere, (2) the fraction of it that was oxygen, (3) how long it had taken for that much oxygen to be released from carbon dioxide (in which it had formerly been bound), and (4) the comparative weight of the one atom of carbon to the two atoms of oxygen in each former molecule of atmospheric carbon dioxide. None of this information was secret or undiscovered; it wasn't even very obscure. Sea-level atmospheric pressure was commonly known, as was the approximate diameter (from which could be calculated the surface area) of the earth. So the weight of all the air on earth could be calculated to a reasonable approximation with ordinary high school mathematics. Roughly one-fifth of the air was now oxygen, and 99 percent of that free oxygen had been released, it has been estimated, in the last 600 million years. The atomic weights of carbon and oxygen were readily available, and their ratio was simple to calculate. So it turned out that about 625,000 tons of carbon per year had been the average amount buried in deposits of coal, oil, natural gas, and other less combustible substances since the photosynthetic process began releasing into the atmosphere a net total of one million billion tons of oxygen. Much of that extraction of carbon from the atmosphere had occurred in the Carboniferous period, between 215 and 300 million years ago, so the present average annual addition to the world's fossil fuel deposits could scarcely be as much as half the long-term average. By the 1970s, however, the world's human population, with all its technology, was burning these substances at a rate that re-oxidized and returned to the air more than four billion tons of carbon each year. In short, the rate of "harvesting" from this ghost acreage (4 billion tons per year) was more than 10,000 times what the rate of replacement might now be (1/2 x 625,000 tons per year). Conservative as the estimate of a 10,000 to 1 ratio might be, it was not calculated in time to deter deep commitment of human societies to such overuse. Even more simply, it would have been possible (had it not been for the pre-ecological paradigm) to see how much the output of agriculture and forestry and fishing would have had to increase if Homo sapiens were to try to derive more of his current energy expenditures from current energy income. Man was withdrawing annually from savings about ten times as much energy as he was obtaining from current income (from organic sources); therefore, to reduce his dependence on fossil acreage by only one-tenth, man would have to double his use of contemporary photosynthesis. That would obviously entail improvements falling somewhere in the almost surely unattainable range, between another doubling of yield per acre and another doubling of tilled acreage at existing yields. To become completely free from dependence on prehistoric energy (without reducing population or per capita energy consumption), modern man would require an increase in contemporary carrying capacity equivalent to ten earths - each of whose surfaces was forested, tilled, fished, and harvested to the current extent of our planet. Without ten new earths, it followed that man's exuberant way of life would be cut back drastically sometime in the future, or else that there would someday be many fewer people. Neither alternative, and none of the reasons for them, were contemplated by those who glibly sought "energy independence". James Watt had been conventionally regarded as something of a cultural hero for giving man access to a vast "new" source of energy. In the eighteenth century no one could recognize that, by inventing the steam engine, Watt was inventing a way for mankind to overshoot the sustainable carrying capacity of this one earth. Watt was a clever and decent man who lived in (and exemplified) the Age of Exuberance. His invention compounded the influence of Columbus's discovery, extending the carrying capacity surplus that briefly shaped our ideas, our lives, and our institutions. Watt reinforced man's belief in limitlessness. Neither Watt nor Roosevelt, who also reinforced that belief, was ever taught to think in terms of carrying capacity or ghost acreage. So Roosevelt could not know, while inspiring and leading his countrymen toward recovery from economic depression, or when helping ensure Allied victory over Axis aggression, that he was prolonging unrealistic expectations of exuberance. No one in his "brain trust" could warn him of this, because even the keen minds of his advisors were tuned to the old cornucopian paradigm and were not trained to recognize the perils of dependence on phantom carrying capacity. Once mankind was committed to heavy reliance on continued use of exhaustible resources such as the deposits of fossil energy, it was certain to be as painful for people to emancipate themselves from their own technological entrapment as it had been for earlier men to emancipate themselves from owning human slaves. >From the end of 1973, Americans began worrying about the ratio between their consumption of "foreign oil" and their consumption of "domestic oil". We let these worries overshadow completely the more profound issue that should have concerned everyone: the ratio between our dependence on energy from antiquity and our use of contemporary energy, that is, the ratio between expenditures of withdrawn savings and expenditures of current income. The four billion human inhabitants of this one earth had learned to live as if they could count on harvesting each year the equivalent of ten earths' worth of combustible substance. Notes 1. Recognition of this called for a change of national policy that long ago. See Whelpton 1939. 2. Compare discussion of the revolutionary potential when "cultural lags" pile up (Ogburn 1957) with the statement by Heilbroner (1974, page 132; listed among references for Chapter 1) explaining why the outlook is for "convulsive change". 3. Frederick Jackson Turner, "The Significance of the Frontier in American History", Proceedings of the State Historical Society of Wisconsin 41 (1894):79-1 12. 4. Neither the change nor the misunderstanding of it would be exclusively American. This was important: the world had been affected by the free land in the Western hemisphere. It had also been affected by the technology that increased man's power to extract from the land in both hemispheres more wealth than earlier generations ever dreamed possible. So the whole world was now also affected by the filling up of formerly free land, and by the accumulated side-effects of modern technology. See Webb 1952 (listed among references for Chapter 2) and Cottrell 1955. 5. There were a few ways in which bigots might misread their racism into a book like Vogt's, and some writers (for example, Allan Chase, The Legacy of Malthus: The Social Costs of the New Scientific Racism [New York: Alfred A Knopf, 1976], pages 378-380) were offended by these aspects of the book. In a later book (People! Challenge to Survival [New York: William Sloane Associates, 1960]) Vogt acknowledged that he had been accused of racism for urging sharp reduction of birthrates especially among Latin Americans, Asians, and Africans, but he pointed out that his accusers "chose to forget my belief that the United States would [also] be better off with less people". They also seemed to have read through Road to Survival without grasping its central message, as expressed in statements like these: [page 80] We must realize that not only does every area have a limited carrying capacity - but also that this carrying capacity is shrinking and the demand growing. Until this understanding becomes an intrinsic part of our thinking and wields a powerful influence on our formation of national and international policies we are scarcely likely to see in what direction our destiny lies. [page 284] By excessive breeding and abuse of the land mankind has backed itself into an ecological trap. By a lopsided use of applied science it has been living on promissory notes. Now, all over the world, the notes are falling due. Payment cannot be postponed much longer. Fortunately, we still may choose between payment and utterly disastrous bankruptcy on a world scale. It will certainly be more intelligent to pull in our belts and accept a long period of austerity and rebuilding than to wait for a catastrophic crash of our civilization. Critics who dismissed Vogt as an implicit racist were evading the necessity of facing that choice between revising our drawdown policies and undergoing global bankruptcy. Vogt had said (page 284), "In hard fact, we have no other choice". And he was hardly being racist or xenophobic when he insisted (page 285), "Drastic measures are inescapable. Above everything else, we must reorganize our thinking. If we are to escape the crash we must abandon all thought of living unto ourselves". By accusing Vogt of racism, however, preoccupied critics could even remain blind to such warnings as this: [page 68] We are an importing nation; and every day we waste hundreds of millions of gallons [of gasoline] ... Our tensions find outlets in ... traveling at high speeds that reduce the efficiency of our cars. We build into our automobiles more power and greater gas consumption than we need. We use the press and radio to push the sales of more cars. We drive them hundreds of millions of miles a year in pursuit of futility. With the exhaustion of our own oil wells in sight, we send our Navy into the Mediterranean, show our teeth to the USSR, insist on access to Asiatic oil-and continue to throw it away at home. 6. For example, American officials urge Saudi Arabia to keep oil output high to help stabilize the world economy in the face of shortages from other sources; the administration pushes through Congress a proposal for an Energy Mobilization Board with powers to "cut red tape" (that is, bypass environmental protection legislation) when energy-related projects such as pipelines, oil refineries, synthetic fuel factories, and so on, are at stake; the government "deregulates" natural gas and petroleum prices partly to "give incentives" to "producers". 7. Borgstrom 1965, page 78. 8. Ibid. 9. See such sources as Small 1971; Colin Clark, "The Economics of Over exploitation", in Hardin and Baden 1977, pages 82-95; P A Larkin, "An Epitaph for the Concept of Maximum Sustained Yield", Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 106 (January 1977):1-11. There is an important relation between the sustained yield concept and the concept of carrying capacity. Carrying capacity could be defined as the maximum population of an exploiting species supportable by sustained yields of exploited resource species. See the definitions of these two terms given in the Glossary. 10. See Moorcraft 1973. 11. See Wynne-Edwards 1975. 12. See several of the papers in Schmidhauser and Totten 1978. 13. "Japanese Protest US Fishing Limit", Seattle Times, November 4 1976, page G4. 14. Richard S Lewis, Appointment on the Moon (New York: Viking Press, 1969), pages 504, 546, gives the total weight of the Apollo ll Command Module plus Service Module plus Lunar Module plus Lunar Adapter as 50 tons. The velocity to which all this weight had been boosted when it left earth orbit en route to the moon was 24,000 miles per hour. It had thus had imparted to it 2.61 times 1012 joules of kinetic energy. For comparison: since three-fourths of the Great Pyramid's 450 foot height is above its center of mass, the 11.5 billion pounds of stone used to build it were raised an average 112.5 feet from the ground; this imparted to the 2.3 million stone blocks a total of 1.76 times 1012 joules of gravitational potential energy-roughly two-thirds of the energy imparted by rocket engines to the spacecraft bound for the moon. 15. Newsweek, March 27 1972, page 39. 16. In 1979, American gasoline prices began to catch up with the higher prices most of the world's other peoples had already experienced for years. The rise continued to be mistaken for "gouging" or "blackmail", even though in ecological terms it was fundamentally an approach to greater realism, that is, the beginning of a continuing correction of past underpricing. 17. Cottrell 1955, page 4. 18. See Ayres and Scarlett 1952, pages 233-239, and Cottrell 1955, pages 141-142. 19. Christian Science Monitor, November 12 1976, pages 1, 30. 20. Cottrell 1955, page 142. 21. Recent research even indicates that biomass farming would, with present technology, yield negative net energy: energy inputs would exceed the energy content of the usable fuels made from the harvests. This shows even more emphatically how dependent upon phantom carrying capacity modern nations have allowed themselves to become. See Weisz and Marshall 1979. 22. At a time when other nations were devising "carless day" schemes, or were at least having to curtail the hours or days of the week on which gasoline could be sold, the American Daily News Digest (put out by Research Publications of Phoenix, Arizona) expressed its "conservative, free-market economics philosophy" by asking "Why is it that only the US has a gasoline shortage?" The answer it suggested (in the third week of May 1979) was that "only the US has a Department of Energy". Startlingly similar views were expressed the following month by the 1976 winner of the Nobel Prize for Economics, Milton Friedman, who called for immediate abolition of the DOE and elimination of all price controls on petroleum products and natural gas, "confident that the market will promptly bring the energy crisis to an end". See his column in Newsweek, June 18 1979. 23. Hardin's article has been widely cited and reprinted, and is included in Hardin and Baden 1977. See page 28 therein. 24. See Hubbert 1969 (listed in references for Chapter 10), page 178. 25. When used with insufficient care, "efficiency" can be a very misleading word. It always has a hidden reference: efficient with respect to what? In America and throughout the industrial world, labor efficiency has been purchased at the price of energy inefficiency. The latter type of efficiency has simply been neglected; as long as energy was unrealistically cheap and lavishly abundant, even the familiar concept of capital efficiency served very inadequately as a correlate or indicator of energy efficiency. 26. See the chapter by Lloyd V Berkner and Lauriston C Marshall in Brancazio and Cameron 1964. For a less technical version, see the article by the same authors in the tenth anniversary issue of Saturday Review, May 7 1966. Selected References Ayres, Eugene, and Charles A Scarlett. 1952. Energy Sources: The Wealth of the World. New York: McGraw-Hill. Billington, Ray Allen. 1966. America's Frontier Heritage. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Borgstrom, Georg. 1965. The Hungry Planet. New York: Collier. Borgstrom, Georg. 1969. Too Many: A Study of Earth's Biological Limitations. New York: Macmillan. Brancazio, Peter J, and A G W Cameron, editors. 1964. The Origin and Evolution of Atmospheres and Oceans. New York: John Wiley and Sons. Bryson, Reid A, and Thomas J Murray. 1977. Climates of Hunger: Mankind and the World's Changing Weather. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press. Cottrell, Fred. 1955. Energy and Society. New York: McGraw-Hill. Esposito, John C. 1970. Vanishing Air. New York: Grossman. Hardin, Garrett, and John Baden, editors. 1977. Managing the Commons. San Francisco: W H Freeman. Loehr, Rodney C, editor. 1952. Forests for the Future: The Story of Sustained Yield as Told in the Diaries and Papers of David T Mason, 1907-1950. St Paul: Minnesota Historical Society. Loftas, Tony. 1970. The Last Resource: Man's Exploitation of the Oceans. Chicago: Henry Regnery. Moorcraft, Colin. 1973. Must the Seas Die? Boston: Gambit. Ogburn, William F. 1957. "Cultural Lag as Theory". Sociology and Social Research 41 (January - February): 167-174. Ordway, Samuel H, Jr. 1953. Resources and the American Dream. New York: Ronald Press. Park, Charles F, Jr. 1968. Affluence in Jeopardy. San Francisco: Freeman, Cooper. Schmidhauser, John R, and George O Totten III, editors. 1978. The Whaling Issue in US-Japan Relations. Boulder: Westview Press Small, George L. 1971. The Blue Whale. New York: Columbia University Press Turner, Frederick Jackson. 1920. The Frontier in American History. New York: Henry Holt Vogt, William 1948. Road to Survival. New York: William Sloane Associates. Weisz, Paul B, and John F Marshall. 1979. "High-Grade Fuels from Biomass Farming: Potentials and Con straints". Science 206 (October 5): 24-29 Whelpton, P K. 1939. "Population Policy for the United States". Journal of Heredity 30 (September): 401-406. Wynne-Edwards, V C. 1965. "Self-Regulating Systems in Populations of Animals". Science 147 (March 26): 1543-48. Bill Totten www.ashisuto.co.jp/english/ news by category: Resources Coal Methane hydrates Natural gas Nuclear Oil Other resource depletion Renewable energy Shale oil Tar sands Regions Africa Asia South and East Australia & Oceania Europe Global Latin America Middle East North America Polar Regions Russia & Central Asia Related Issues Community Economics Education Electricity Environment & sustainablity Climate Consumerism Energy demand Human ecology & behaviour Overshoot Population Water Food & agriculture Health Housing & urban design Industry Media & persuasion Politics Solutions Transport Waste Content on this site is subject to our fair use notice. Survivors know the truth about energy, food and the environment, and are preparing for the meltdown. Perishers don't know the truth, or don't care, and still believe the system will provide, even as it starts to collapse. Date: Sun, 5 Oct 2008 18:59:52 +1000To: le-members at list.wji.comFrom: elinwood at westnet.com.auSubject: [LE] Population Growth and Climate change discussionI have sent this subject title, not because I have anything to say right now, but because I think that it is helpful that the subject title reflects the discussion. I may send something on this in response to those who have been speaking on this, but haven't time right now.cheers,EllaAnton ?Presupposing keeping alive only one fifth of the world's population must be deemed ethically irrelevant to any definition of Living economics. The injustice inherent in the present so-called economic system is not caused by huge population numbers but by the huge political power wielded by a tiny unelected elite. The only economic system whose definition starts by presupposing the death of four fifths of the population would be more dead than Living. Forget demography; it only came to such prominence on today's agenda because Rockefeller paid for the research that put it there and, we can easily guess at the motives. Of course half or more of the population will soon perish, because certain elite owners of capital have decided that letting the other half die from hunger, war, pestilence or loss of habitat is more profitable (financially) than letting them live. Banking on half or more of humanity getting out of the way is no basis for any Living Economics. Having got that red herring out of the way, we can get on with formulating its real basis. And it is the automatic alchemical transformation 1) of time into money and 2) of money into political power, that an elite must then wield, that is what Living Economics should make impossible. In a word, abolishing monopoly capitalism and all its attendant sustainable stupidities, is the aim, the means and the result of Living Economics, the precise mecanisms being up for discussion at any moment in time & space, such as the spending into free circulation of public money, spent on real goods & services, meaning it be issued at zero interest and not created ex nihilo by private banks and then bought & sold like merchandise, et cetera. Yours in damp & foggy Brittany, Anton Pinschof. PS: whether or not an Albert Brtlett was the greatest thinker of our time, I have never heard of him. Were I to be labelled a great thinker and asked to pontificate, I could think of many more evident truths to proclaim such as, Justice & Security & Prosperity & Self-government are the best ways to a sustainable population level. I have been criticised for not being sufficiently exact. I said previously that any activity involving the use of electricty is, by definition, unsustainable. That was meant to indicate that use of electricity within mainstrseam culture [by households, commerce and industry or municipalities for lighting, heating, powering electric motors, electroplating, electromagnets and everything connected with running computers or information technology] is unsustanable, whether the electricity is generated by burning coal, burning oil, burning natural gas, nuclear, photovoltaic, wind or wave energy. No means of generating electricity is infinitely sustainable, though some forms of generation would be expected to have a longer life and cause less damage than others. i.e. phovoltaic could be regarded as semi-sustainable until the materails degrade, wind until the bearings wear out, hydro until silting behind the dam renders the system inoperable etc. Most analysts conveniently ignore the cabon debt incurred during manufacture and the need for maintenance and replacement when promoting so-called alternative systems. Many incur such massive CO2 debts during manifacture they never repay their CO2 debt to the environment. In most so-called civilised countries the burning of fossil fuels (particuallry coal) is the prime source of energy for powering grids. That is particularly true of Australia, China, the US etc. Continuation along the present path of the burning of fossil fuels is one the fastest routes possible to complete death of the planet via abrupt climate change. Our current way of living, depending on location and lifestyle, involves using energy at anything up to 1000 times the rate we should be using energy, and generating massive quantites of pollution. It is totally unsustanable and will come to an end fairly soon. Any proposal for a Living Economy based on even 10% of current energy use is unsustanable, though it may push out the horizon for abrupt climate change by a few years. We simply do not know. But Dr Jim Hansen and his team at NASA have categorically stated that we should be working toward 'Agenda 350', i.e. 350ppm CO2 if we are to have any chance of preventing a runaway greenhouse effect for the next generation. We are currently at around 390ppm and doing next to nothing to prevent greenhosue gas emissions accelerating, (the 'more population, more roads, expansion of airports, get the coal out of the ground a burn it as quickly as possible' agendas of most political parties) let alone actually doing anything to reduce emissions. I trust the above clarifies. Kind regards Kevin I am simply pointing out that prior to the Industrial Revolution and prior to industrial argriculturewe had Living Economies. What we have now is an economy of abuse and death that is totally unsustanable and is killing the planet -though most people in Western nations fail to recognise that we live in a culture ofabuse and death because they fail to connect the dots -indeed, have been carefully trained by the system and its all its agents to remain uninformed and to not connect the dots! Neuro-linguistic programming is a very, very powerful tool in the wrong hands! Not only is the dominant culture killing the planet, but it is also 'killing' the efforts of people such as the LE group who earnestly to try to make a future for the next generation. One of the main reasons this continuing dire state of affairs is able to be maintained by the system is because most people in Western societies are entirely detached from the natural world that makes their lives possible. Under such circumstances it will only when the industrial system fails they will realise the extent to which they have been lied to and misled. Fortunately the dominant economic system is in the process of dying, so your suggestion'Perhaps you should start a new group to run in parellel to LE? It could be called Dying Economies :-)' is entirely unnecessary . I personally would be very surprised if current economic arrangements can be maintianed for more than another year or two. Having spent the past decade trying to wake up those who slumber through peak oil and environmental collapse, I have no interest in further activsm or formation of groups. Very soon it will be a fight for survival for most people in Western nations (as is already the case throughout most of the rest of the world). Of course the whole purpose of warning people about what is on its way is simply a form of humanism -trying to reduce the overall degree of suffering that people will have to endure. However, at this late stage in the game I am under no illusions: ignorance and complacency will undoubtedly rule to the bitter end. What people now have the very simple choice of becoming informed and making appropriate prepartions, therrby increasing their chances of survival, or not. The great irony is that the more people who perish in the first round oif die-ff, the easier it will be for those who remain. Profssor Albert Bartlett said it all in his absolutley brilliant lecture 'Arithmentic, Population and Energy' (very easily found by Internet search if anyone has not seen it).I doubt that anyone will ever improve on what Professor Bartlett said in that lecture. Kind regards Kevin At 01:17 PM 3/10/2008, you wrote:Take care folks,Having just spent months studying the English economic history from 1300-1800, I wouldn't go overboard with its "Living Economy"Except possibly for a period towards the end of the 15th century when the population was still very low after having been halved by plague and pestilence, for most people life was a real struggle for survival. In fact, Raj is right, they were dying economies rather than living ones. About half the children died by age 10 and the average life expectancy was in the low 30's, ( as low as 25 in London which was a veritable people eater)The Living Economies promoted by the LE group has little in keeping with pre-industrial England.Cheers,Lowell Manning ou have hit the nail on the head Lowell. The death rate was very close to the birth rate,so there was very little population growth. The population of the world was well below 1 billion for century after century, and would have remained below 1 billion had it not been for the unsustainable use of coal, and then subsequently oil and natural gas. Now we are on gross overshoot (check the work of Catton, who calculates that overshoot commenced around 1860). Depending on the estimate of how many people can be fed by sustanable agriculture (best analysis indicates between 0.5 billion and 1.5 billion) we need around 5 billion to perish before we can even contemplate establishing a truly sustainable society. Much of the debate does depend on whether we intend to devote all the resources of the planet to feeding people, or whether we are prepared to share the planet with millions of other species that have as much right to life as humans, such as elephants, tigers, orang-utans etc. Most of the data I have seen lately suggests 'we' intend to wipe out most other life forms by habitat destruction and global warming. The majority of amphibiansare perilously close to extinction, as are numerous mammals and birds. Of course human population control is a taboo subject in most quarters, which is why debates usually never get anywhere. So nature is going to deal with the human population overshoot in ways which will not be pleasant. Regards Kevin P.S. Have you actually seen/read the Albert Bartlett lecture? There really is little point in continuing the debate if you have not. At 07:22 PM 3/10/2008, you wrote:I think that estimates of the human carrying capacity of the earth are all very much back of the napkin. It is however clear that we have been behaving highly inefficiently both with current solar energy and fossil fuels. We are simply dominators and destroyers. We need less people in order for other life to continue. We need less people because we are out of balance with all other life on earth. How many less depends on how efficient we can become and how prepared we are to govern our appetites.Somehow we must stop being dominators and destroyers otherwise no amount of population reduction will make any difference. Energy and ethical failure has given us too much leverage. There appear to be physical solutions to many of the problems that we have caused. It is the ethical, cultural and spiritual solutions that are failing us.One important thing is to cultivate a more healthy relationship with death. Perishing or surviving? I will be perishing anyway.Bryan At 11:51 AM 4/10/2008, you wrote:KevinYour forecast collapse of society may or may not happen when or how you believe. Our ability to forecast is woeful even with our amazing computational resources.But death has always been the one certainty we can all rely on.I think Living Economies is all about developing and promoting living systems whether we have a population of 6 bln or 6m.Perhaps you should start a new group to run in parellel to LE?It could be called Dying Economies :-)BlessingsRaf-------------------------- _________________________________________________________________ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://list.wji.com/pipermail/le-members/attachments/20081006/2cd0a58a/attachment-0001.html -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 204fbc7.jpg Type: application/octet-stream Size: 1554 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://list.wji.com/pipermail/le-members/attachments/20081006/2cd0a58a/attachment-0001.obj From boblloyd at physics.otago.ac.nz Mon Oct 6 04:08:46 2008 From: boblloyd at physics.otago.ac.nz (boblloyd at physics.otago.ac.nz) Date: Mon, 6 Oct 2008 21:08:46 +1300 (NZDT) Subject: [LE] Population Growth and Climate change discussion In-Reply-To: References: <20081005085949.A77F42BEFFD@hosted01.westnet.com.au> Message-ID: <1100.122.57.251.126.1223280526.squirrel@www.physics.otago.ac.nz> > Hi Kevin Just to let you know we had Albert Bartlett at Otago in 2005 to give his exponential growth talk at the ANZSES meeting held in Dunedin that year and just last month we had William Catton give two talks on his book Overshoot as part of our energy studies- energy policy course eman 410. His grandson also Will Catton is one of our PhD students so there is a connection with NZ (father Phillip at U Canterbury) There are a few slides on one of these talks on our energy studies website but they dont do justice to his live talk as he is of the ovehead projector generation. On growth you might like to catch my growth delusion paper also on our website under bob lloyd downloads (why we dont want to believe in peak oil and climate change) which I will be giving to the upcoming aspo meeting in Barcelona in two weeks. Regards Bob Lloyd > The link to Professor Albert Bartlett's brilliant lecture is below. > > Our greatest failure is the failure to understand the exponential function > (which characterises constant compounding growth). > > Anyone who is serious about undestanding our current predicament needs to > be very familar with this highly informative, thought provoking, and > entertaining lecture. > > Regards > > Kevin > > Dr. Albert Bartlett: Arithmetic, Population and Energy > > > 29 Aug 2004 | | View all related to Climate Change | Oil | Population | > Resource DepletionView all related to Albert A. Bartlett > > > The retired Professor of Physics from the University of Colorado in > Boulder examines the arithmetic of steady growth, continued over modest > periods of time, in a finite environment. These concepts are applied to > populations and to fossil fuels such as petroleum and coal. > VideoDr. Albert Bartlett: Arithmetic, Population and Energy (length 58): > streamRead transcript: EnglishRead transcript: Fran?aisRead transcript: > Espa?ol > AudioDr. Albert Bartlett: Arithmetic, Population and Energy (length 57): > download, streamRead transcript: EnglishRead transcript: Fran?aisRead > transcript: Espa?ol > > > Login or register to post comments > 92522 reads > > Survivors know the truth about energy, food and the environment, and are > preparing for the meltdown. > Perishers don't know the truth, or don't care, and still believe the > system will provide, even as it starts to collapse. > > Date: Sun, 5 Oct 2008 18:59:52 +1000To: le-members at list.wji.comFrom: > elinwood at westnet.com.auSubject: [LE] Population Growth and Climate change > discussionI have sent this subject title, not because I have anything to > say right now, but because I think that it is helpful that the subject > title reflects the discussion. I may send something on this in response > to those who have been speaking on this, but haven't time right > now.cheers,EllaAnton Presupposing keeping alive only one fifth of the > world's population must be deemed ethically irrelevant to any definition > of Living economics. The injustice inherent in the present so-called > economic system is not caused by huge population numbers but by the huge > political power wielded by a tiny unelected elite. The only economic > system whose definition starts by presupposing the death of four fifths of > the population would be more dead than Living. Forget demography; it only > came to such prominence on today's agenda because Rockefeller paid for the > research that put it there and, we can easily guess at the motives. Of > course half or more of the population will soon perish, because certain > elite owners of capital have decided that letting the other half die from > hunger, war, pestilence or loss of habitat is more profitable > (financially) than letting them live. Banking on half or more of humanity > getting out of the way is no basis for any Living Economics. Having got > that red herring out of the way, we can get on with formulating its real > basis. And it is the automatic alchemical transformation 1) of time into > money and 2) of money into political power, that an elite must then wield, > that is what Living Economics should make impossible. In a word, > abolishing monopoly capitalism and all its attendant sustainable > stupidities, is the aim, the means and the result of Living Economics, the > precise mecanisms being up for discussion at any moment in time & space, > such as the spending into free circulation of public money, spent on real > goods & services, meaning it be issued at zero interest and not created ex > nihilo by private banks and then bought & sold like merchandise, et > cetera. Yours in damp & foggy Brittany, Anton Pinschof. PS: whether or not > an Albert Brtlett was the greatest thinker of our time, I have never heard > of him. Were I to be labelled a great thinker and asked to pontificate, I > could think of many more evident truths to proclaim such as, Justice & > Security & Prosperity & Self-government are the best ways to a sustainable > population level. I have been criticised for not being sufficiently > exact. I said previously that any activity involving the use of electricty > is, by definition, unsustainable. That was meant to indicate that use of > electricity within mainstrseam culture [by households, commerce and > industry or municipalities for lighting, heating, powering electric > motors, electroplating, electromagnets and everything connected with > running computers or information technology] is unsustanable, whether the > electricity is generated by burning coal, burning oil, burning natural > gas, nuclear, photovoltaic, wind or wave energy. No means of generating > electricity is infinitely sustainable, though some forms of generation > would be expected to have a longer life and cause less damage than others. > i.e. phovoltaic could be regarded as semi-sustainable until the materails > degrade, wind until the bearings wear out, hydro until silting behind the > dam renders the system inoperable etc. Most analysts conveniently ignore > the cabon debt incurred during manufacture and the need for maintenance > and replacement when promoting so-called alternative systems. Many incur > such massive CO2 debts during manifacture they never repay their CO2 debt > to the environment. In most so-called civilised countries the burning of > fossil fuels (particuallry coal) is the prime source of energy for > powering grids. That is particularly true of Australia, China, the US etc. > Continuation along the present path of the burning of fossil fuels is one > the fastest routes possible to complete death of the planet via abrupt > climate change. Our current way of living, depending on location and > lifestyle, involves using energy at anything up to 1000 times the rate we > should be using energy, and generating massive quantites of pollution. It > is totally unsustanable and will come to an end fairly soon. Any proposal > for a Living Economy based on even 10% of current energy use is > unsustanable, though it may push out the horizon for abrupt climate change > by a few years. We simply do not know. But Dr Jim Hansen and his team at > NASA have categorically stated that we should be working toward 'Agenda > 350', i.e. 350ppm CO2 if we are to have any chance of preventing a runaway > greenhouse effect for the next generation. We are currently at around > 390ppm and doing next to nothing to prevent greenhosue gas emissions > accelerating, (the 'more population, more roads, expansion of airports, > get the coal out of the ground a burn it as quickly as possible' agendas > of most political parties) let alone actually doing anything to reduce > emissions. I trust the above clarifies. Kind regards Kevin I am simply > pointing out that prior to the Industrial Revolution and prior to > industrial argriculturewe had Living Economies. What we have now is an > economy of abuse and death that is totally unsustanable and is killing the > planet -though most people in Western nations fail to recognise that we > live in a culture ofabuse and death because they fail to connect the dots > -indeed, have been carefully trained by the system and its all its agents > to remain uninformed and to not connect the dots! Neuro-linguistic > programming is a very, very powerful tool in the wrong hands! Not only is > the dominant culture killing the planet, but it is also 'killing' the > efforts of people such as the LE group who earnestly to try to make a > future for the next generation. One of the main reasons this continuing > dire state of affairs is able to be maintained by the system is because > most people in Western societies are entirely detached from the natural > world that makes their lives possible. Under such circumstances it will > only when the industrial system fails they will realise the extent to > which they have been lied to and misled. Fortunately the dominant economic > system is in the process of dying, so your suggestion'Perhaps you should > start a new group to run in parellel to LE? It could be called Dying > Economies :-)' is entirely unnecessary . I personally would be very > surprised if current economic arrangements can be maintianed for more than > another year or two. Having spent the past decade trying to wake up those > who slumber through peak oil and environmental collapse, I have no > interest in further activsm or formation of groups. Very soon it will be a > fight for survival for most people in Western nations (as is already the > case throughout most of the rest of the world). Of course the whole > purpose of warning people about what is on its way is simply a form of > humanism -trying to reduce the overall degree of suffering that people > will have to endure. However, at this late stage in the game I am under no > illusions: ignorance and complacency will undoubtedly rule to the bitter > end. What people now have the very simple choice of becoming informed > and making appropriate prepartions, therrby increasing their chances of > survival, or not. The great irony is that the more people who perish in > the first round oif die-ff, the easier it will be for those who remain. > Profssor Albert Bartlett said it all in his absolutley brilliant lecture > 'Arithmentic, Population and Energy' (very easily found by Internet search > if anyone has not seen it).I doubt that anyone will ever improve on what > Professor Bartlett said in that lecture. Kind regards Kevin At 01:17 PM > 3/10/2008, you wrote:Take care folks,Having just spent months studying the > English economic history from 1300-1800, I wouldn't go overboard with its > "Living Economy"Except possibly for a period towards the end of the 15th > century when the population was still very low after having been halved by > plague and pestilence, for most people life was a real struggle for > survival. In fact, Raj is right, they were dying economies rather than > living ones. About half the children died by age 10 and the average life > expectancy was in the low 30's, ( as low as 25 in London which was a > veritable people eater)The Living Economies promoted by the LE group has > little in keeping with pre-industrial England.Cheers,Lowell Manning ou > have hit the nail on the head Lowell. The death rate was very close to the > birth rate,so there was very little population growth. The population of > the world was well below 1 billion for century after century, and would > have remained below 1 billion had it not been for the unsustainable use of > coal, and then subsequently oil and natural gas. Now we are on gross > overshoot (check the work of Catton, who calculates that overshoot > commenced around 1860). Depending on the estimate of how many people can > be fed by sustanable agriculture (best analysis indicates between 0.5 > billion and 1.5 billion) we need around 5 billion to perish before we can > even contemplate establishing a truly sustainable society. Much of the > debate does depend on whether we intend to devote all the resources of the > planet to feeding people, or whether we are prepared to share the planet > with millions of other species that have as much right to life as humans, > such as elephants, tigers, orang-utans etc. Most of the data I have seen > lately suggests 'we' intend to wipe out most other life forms by habitat > destruction and global warming. The majority of amphibiansare perilously > close to extinction, as are numerous mammals and birds. Of course human > population control is a taboo subject in most quarters, which is why > debates usually never get anywhere. So nature is going to deal with the > human population overshoot in ways which will not be pleasant. Regards > Kevin P.S. Have you actually seen/read the Albert Bartlett lecture? There > really is little point in continuing the debate if you have not. At 07:22 > PM 3/10/2008, you wrote:I think that estimates of the human carrying > capacity of the earth are all very much back of the napkin. It is however > clear that we have been behaving highly inefficiently both with current > solar energy and fossil fuels. We are simply dominators and destroyers. We > need less people in order for other life to continue. We need less people > because we are out of balance with all other life on earth. How many less > depends on how efficient we can become and how prepared we are to govern > our appetites.Somehow we must stop being dominators and destroyers > otherwise no amount of population reduction will make any difference. > Energy and ethical failure has given us too much leverage. There appear to > be physical solutions to many of the problems that we have caused. It is > the ethical, cultural and spiritual solutions that are failing us.One > important thing is to cultivate a more healthy relationship with death. > Perishing or surviving? I will be perishing anyway.Bryan At 11:51 AM > 4/10/2008, you wrote:KevinYour forecast collapse of society may or may not > happen when or how you believe. Our ability to forecast is woeful even > with our amazing computational resources.But death has always been the one > certainty we can all rely on.I think Living Economies is all about > developing and promoting living systems whether we have a population of 6 > bln or 6m.Perhaps you should start a new group to run in parellel to LE?It > could be called Dying Economies :-)BlessingsRaf-------------------------- > _________________________________________________________________ > > _______________________________________________ > LE-Members mailing list > LE-Members at wji.com > http://list.wji.com/mailman/listinfo/le-members > From utr at raglan.net.nz Tue Oct 7 04:52:47 2008 From: utr at raglan.net.nz (Aaron) Date: Tue, 7 Oct 2008 21:52:47 +1300 Subject: [LE] NZ economic analysis References: <00b201c9268b$e51136b0$0201a8c0@aaron> <30668888-B8C8-4743-9C46-9E784B4B63EE@kapiti.co.nz> Message-ID: <009b01c9285a$12304210$0201a8c0@aaron> Lowell, thanks for your comments, that's actually the sort of analysis I was looking for - and much more specific than generalised doom-saying. I would probably add that another difference between NZ and the US is that we still have a genuine productive sector in the form of food production which is currently even more lucrative during a world wide food shortage. This will slow the rate of economic decline, but by how much I don't really know. Raf, thanks for those links. Kevin, I think you're right that current events are related to those events of the past but I think it goes back further than that, here's an article I just read which I thought tied it all together nicely http://realitysandwich.com/money_and_crisis_civilization . It ends with a positive view of what can be done with the vaccuum created by the implosion of the money system, which I think will be of interest to everyone on this list. I would emphasise that the positive vision of the future is FAR more energising (and therefore helpful) to readers than mere doom-saying. Aaron ----- Original Message ----- From: Lowell Manning To: Kevin Moore ; Stephnie deRuyter Cc: Aaron ; le-members at list.wji.com Sent: Sunday, October 05, 2008 8:37 PM Subject: Re: [LE] NZ economic analysis Hi Kevin, As at end March the NZ total debt was about $413 billion made up of $273b domestic Credit and $140b in accumulated current account deficits. That indeed makes NZ in terms of GDP ($178b) one of the most indebted countries in the developed world. Every year for each of the past 30 years or more we have borrowed the entire nominal increase in GDP for that year in the form of the current account deficit. There is little danger of implosion in New Zealand though, but just like other countries especially US, the deficits and the borrowing mean an ongoing shift , in the form of unearned (interest) income, of the nation's wealth to the holders of bank deposits. In aggregate those in the productive economy are becoming poorer while those in the investment sector are becoming richer, literally by about NZ$30b in the year ended March 2008. The current turmoil in the financial sector in NZ is just a blip in a much broader process. New Zealand is, despite the debt loading, has nowhere near the problems faced in the US that have been caused by rampant greed and fraud on a massive scale. Instead, the foreseeable future here is an ongoing perceptible decline in the real living standards of ordinary people. Within the orthodox financial system the transfer of wealth from poor to rich can be corrected ONLY by massive taxation of the investment sector to create an equal and opposite monetary flow from the investment sector to the productive sector, say roughly $25billion in the year ended March 2008 Far and away the best solution is simply to remove interest on deposits. The key to reform and economic survival is to provide a mechanism where inflation in the investment sector and inflation in the productive sector are matched. Removing interest on deposits through statutory intervention will do that instantly. Otherwise, over time we will all become economic slaves in our own land. Cheers, Lowell On 5/10/2008, at 7:47 PM, Kevin Moore wrote: Quick summary: The last I read NZ debt level is higher per capita that the US. NZ imports a greater % oif its oil that the US. NZ government budgets on oil at around $70 a barrel whether it is $90 or $140 a barrel. Trade imbalance varies a lot throughout the year but on average NZ spends approximate 1 billion a month more than it earns. Most farmers culled a lot of stock due to last summer's drought, so are entering thr spring with very low stock numbers. Implosion coming soon. Helen and company have done a great job in sabotaging the economy. but don't expect anything different from any of the others. K Survivors know the truth about energy, food and the environment, and are preparing for the meltdown. Perishers don't know the truth, or don't care, and still believe the system will provide, even as it starts to collapse. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: utr at raglan.net.nz To: le-members at list.wji.com Date: Sun, 5 Oct 2008 14:44:23 +1300 Subject: [LE] NZ economic analysis It's great to read the excellent economic analysis that comes out of the US alternative media but I'm wondering if anyone knows of someone in New Zealand who is able to discuss the state of the New Zealand economy in the same way that Mike Whitney on Information Clearing House does (for instance) . The recent events in the US financial markets and the their impact on the average citizen comes as no surprise since US writers have done such an excellent job in outlining the problems over there. It's frustrating though that I'm actually less informed about my own country and don't know, for instance, how much debt local banks are carrying, how much of that is in sub prime mortgages and just how close to a meltdown we actually are. I know this is not strictly on topic (although the meltdown of the national economy will probably provide fertile ground for LE) but I thought someone around here might be able to help me out Aaron ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ LE-Members mailing list LE-Members at wji.com http://list.wji.com/mailman/listinfo/le-members -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://list.wji.com/pipermail/le-members/attachments/20081007/147f6d13/attachment-0001.html From kevin_enviro at hotmail.com Tue Oct 7 05:40:41 2008 From: kevin_enviro at hotmail.com (Kevin Moore) Date: Tue, 7 Oct 2008 09:40:41 +0000 Subject: [LE] NZ economic analysis In-Reply-To: <009b01c9285a$12304210$0201a8c0@aaron> References: <00b201c9268b$e51136b0$0201a8c0@aaron> <30668888-B8C8-4743-9C46-9E784B4B63EE@kapiti.co.nz> <009b01c9285a$12304210$0201a8c0@aaron> Message-ID: Aaron, I think it woiuld be very useful if you did not describe realistic projections based on the best scientific evidence as 'doomsaying'. Dismissing reality as doomsaying is not a particulalry productive strategy for dealing with it. The current [industrial] food production system will cease to exist one month after oil tankers stop coming to NZ to deliver cheap oil, or one year after the price of oil passes an indeterminable threshold beyond which its use beomes unfeasoble. Fertilisers topdressing, movement of farm animals, collection of milk, ploughing oif fields, collection and transport of produce are all totally dependent on cheap oil and the entire system will cave on at some stage over the next decade, if not the next 5 years. Tthat is 100$ guaranteed. And NZs industrialised agricultural system would collapse in one month if there were major conflagration in the Middle East. Irrespective of that, NZ can no longer obtain cheap phosphorus from Christmas Island or Nauru becasue the is none left there -we more or less completely mined them out in the twentieth century. Even Florida rock is on its last legs. The last remaining substantial reserves of phosphate are in Morroco -and we know what they think of western government constantly killing Muslims in Iraq, Afghanistan etc. I am not saying it will happen overnight, but at some stage in the near future we will have no phophorus imports, no urea, no potash and agricultural production will begin to plumet. But long before that happens, the cost of transport to overseas markets will cripple exports. Last season exports were severely hit by drought. Right now farmers are suffering (well actually it the livestock that is suffering) from attrociusly wet ground. We are headed into totally uncharted territory with respect to climate but would be very wise to expect and plan for ever greater extremes of drought and inundation -unlike offical bodies that perpetually tells us of the wonderful 'benefits' of global warming. As long as people continue to think in terms of money instead of in terms of energy, rapidly depleting resources and stable geochemistry we will make no progress whatsoever towards sustainability or even towards a realsitic economy for the next decade. Our real wealth is entirely generated by energy supplies and natural resources, not by money. For some inexplicable reason many people continue to identify money and its manipulation as the pathway to wealth. The moeny system is simply used as a mechanism for extracting wealth -effectively looting the planet. The reality is, there is very little left to loot. That, in a nutshell, is why we are going down right now. We have to go down. Going down is unavoidable. What we need to try to make the going down as 'comfortable' as possible. May I suggest you read everything on Energy Bulletin for a month or two and become totaly familiar with peak oil, peak phosphorus, peak water, peak climate etc. Regards Kevin Survivors know the truth about energy, food and the environment, and are preparing for the meltdown. Perishers don't know the truth, or don't care, and still believe the system will provide, even as it starts to collapse. From: utr at raglan.net.nzTo: le-members at list.wji.comDate: Tue, 7 Oct 2008 21:52:47 +1300Subject: Re: [LE] NZ economic analysis Lowell, thanks for your comments, that's actually the sort of analysis I was looking for - and much more specific than generalised doom-saying. I would probably add that another difference between NZ and the US is that we still have a genuine productive sector in the form of food production which is currently even more lucrative during a world wide food shortage. This will slow the rate of economic decline, but by how much I don't really know. Raf, thanks for those links. Kevin, I think you're right that current events are related to those events of the past but I think it goes back further than that, here's an article I just read which I thought tied it all together nicely http://realitysandwich.com/money_and_crisis_civilization . It ends with a positive view of what can be done with the vaccuum created by the implosion of the money system, which I think will be of interest to everyone on this list. I would emphasise that the positive vision of the future is FAR more energising (and therefore helpful) to readers than mere doom-saying. Aaron ----- Original Message ----- From: Lowell Manning To: Kevin Moore ; Stephnie deRuyter Cc: Aaron ; le-members at list.wji.com Sent: Sunday, October 05, 2008 8:37 PM Subject: Re: [LE] NZ economic analysis Hi Kevin, As at end March the NZ total debt was about $413 billion made up of $273b domestic Credit and $140b in accumulated current account deficits. That indeed makes NZ in terms of GDP ($178b) one of the most indebted countries in the developed world. Every year for each of the past 30 years or more we have borrowed the entire nominal increase in GDP for that year in the form of the current account deficit. There is little danger of implosion in New Zealand though, but just like other countries especially US, the deficits and the borrowing mean an ongoing shift , in the form of unearned (interest) income, of the nation's wealth to the holders of bank deposits. In aggregate those in the productive economy are becoming poorer while those in the investment sector are becoming richer, literally by about NZ$30b in the year ended March 2008. The current turmoil in the financial sector in NZ is just a blip in a much broader process. New Zealand is, despite the debt loading, has nowhere near the problems faced in the US that have been caused by rampant greed and fraud on a massive scale. Instead, the foreseeable future here is an ongoing perceptible decline in the real living standards of ordinary people. Within the orthodox financial system the transfer of wealth from poor to rich can be corrected ONLY by massive taxation of the investment sector to create an equal and opposite monetary flow from the investment sector to the productive sector, say roughly $25billion in the year ended March 2008 Far and away the best solution is simply to remove interest on deposits. The key to reform and economic survival is to provide a mechanism where inflation in the investment sector and inflation in the productive sector are matched. Removing interest on deposits through statutory intervention will do that instantly. Otherwise, over time we will all become economic slaves in our own land. Cheers, Lowell On 5/10/2008, at 7:47 PM, Kevin Moore wrote: Quick summary: The last I read NZ debt level is higher per capita that the US. NZ imports a greater % oif its oil that the US. NZ government budgets on oil at around $70 a barrel whether it is $90 or $140 a barrel.Trade imbalance varies a lot throughout the year but on average NZ spends approximate 1 billion a month more than it earns. Most farmers culled a lot of stock due to last summer's drought, so are entering thr spring with very low stock numbers. Implosion coming soon. Helen and company have done a great job in sabotaging the economy. but don't expect anything different from any of the others. K Survivors know the truth about energy, food and the environment, and are preparing for the meltdown. Perishers don't know the truth, or don't care, and still believe the system will provide, even as it starts to collapse. From: utr at raglan.net.nzTo: le-members at list.wji.comDate: Sun, 5 Oct 2008 14:44:23 +1300Subject: [LE] NZ economic analysis It's great to read the excellent economic analysis that comes out of the US alternative media but I'm wondering if anyone knows of someone in New Zealand who is able to discuss the state of the New Zealand economy in the same way that Mike Whitney on Information Clearing House does (for instance) . The recent events in the US financial markets and the their impact on the average citizen comes as no surprise since US writers have done such an excellent job in outlining the problems over there. It's frustrating though that I'm actually less informed about my own country and don't know, for instance, how much debt local banks are carrying, how much of that is in sub prime mortgages and just how close to a meltdown we actually are. I know this is not strictly on topic (although the meltdown of the national economy will probably provide fertile ground for LE) but I thought someone around here might be able to help me out Aaron _______________________________________________ LE-Members mailing list LE-Members at wji.com http://list.wji.com/mailman/listinfo/le-members _________________________________________________________________ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://list.wji.com/pipermail/le-members/attachments/20081007/2d2ab283/attachment.html From manning at kapiti.co.nz Tue Oct 7 15:53:34 2008 From: manning at kapiti.co.nz (Lowell Manning) Date: Wed, 8 Oct 2008 08:53:34 +1300 Subject: [LE] NZ economic analysis In-Reply-To: References: <00b201c9268b$e51136b0$0201a8c0@aaron> <30668888-B8C8-4743-9C46-9E784B4B63EE@kapiti.co.nz> <009b01c9285a$12304210$0201a8c0@aaron> Message-ID: <836BF531-7CA6-47B8-840B-344FFC87494F@kapiti.co.nz> Just about the best fertiliser in the world is urine. The word has the same root as urea. Mix 10 parts water to 1 part urine and you certainly don't need artificially extracted urea. Of course, the implication in the long term is much smaller scale fully sustainable animal and plant husbandry pretty much along the lines Kevin is talking about. My point is that sustainable technology and fully worked models for sustainable development are freely available. For arguably the world's top site on sustainable integrated development go to www.flowman.nl or Google "Bakens Verzet". Best wishes, Lowell Manning On 7/10/2008, at 10:40 PM, Kevin Moore wrote: > Aaron, > > I think it woiuld be very useful if you did not describe realistic > projections based on the best scientific evidence as 'doomsaying'. > > Dismissing reality as doomsaying is not a particulalry productive > strategy for dealing with it. > > The current [industrial] food production system will cease to exist > one month after oil tankers stop coming to NZ to deliver cheap oil, > or one year after the price of oil passes an indeterminable > threshold beyond which its use beomes unfeasoble. Fertilisers > topdressing, movement of farm animals, collection of milk, > ploughing oif fields, collection and transport of produce are all > totally dependent on cheap oil and the entire system will cave on > at some stage over the next decade, if not the next 5 years. Tthat > is 100$ guaranteed. And NZs industrialised agricultural system > would collapse in one month if there were major conflagration in > the Middle East. > > Irrespective of that, NZ can no longer obtain cheap phosphorus from > Christmas Island or Nauru becasue the is none left there -we more > or less completely mined them out in the twentieth century. Even > Florida rock is on its last legs. The last remaining substantial > reserves of phosphate are in Morroco -and we know what they think > of western government constantly killing Muslims in Iraq, > Afghanistan etc. > > I am not saying it will happen overnight, but at some stage in the > near future we will have no phophorus imports, no urea, no potash > and agricultural production will begin to plumet. But long before > that happens, the cost of transport to overseas markets will > cripple exports. > > Last season exports were severely hit by drought. Right now farmers > are suffering (well actually it the livestock that is suffering) > from attrociusly wet ground. We are headed into totally uncharted > territory with respect to climate but would be very wise to expect > and plan for ever greater extremes of drought and inundation - > unlike offical bodies that perpetually tells us of the wonderful > 'benefits' of global warming. > > As long as people continue to think in terms of money instead of in > terms of energy, rapidly depleting resources and stable > geochemistry we will make no progress whatsoever towards > sustainability or even towards a realsitic economy for the next > decade. > > Our real wealth is entirely generated by energy supplies and > natural resources, not by money. For some inexplicable reason many > people continue to identify money and its manipulation as the > pathway to wealth. The moeny system is simply used as a mechanism > for extracting wealth -effectively looting the planet. The reality > is, there is very little left to loot. That, in a nutshell, is why > we are going down right now. We have to go down. Going down is > unavoidable. What we need to try to make the going down as > 'comfortable' as possible. > > May I suggest you read everything on Energy Bulletin for a month or > two and become totaly familiar with peak oil, peak phosphorus, peak > water, peak climate etc. > > Regards > > Kevin > > > > > Survivors know the truth about energy, food and the environment, > and are preparing for the meltdown. > Perishers don't know the truth, or don't care, and still believe > the system will provide, even as it starts to collapse. > > > From: utr at raglan.net.nz > To: le-members at list.wji.com > Date: Tue, 7 Oct 2008 21:52:47 +1300 > Subject: Re: [LE] NZ economic analysis > > Lowell, > > thanks for your comments, that's actually the sort of analysis I > was looking for - and much more specific than generalised doom-saying. > > I would probably add that another difference between NZ and the US > is that we still have a genuine productive sector in the form of > food production which is currently even more lucrative during a > world wide food shortage. This will slow the rate of economic > decline, but by how much I don't really know. > > Raf, thanks for those links. > > Kevin, I think you're right that current events are related to > those events of the past but I think it goes back further than > that, here's an article I just read which I thought tied it all > together nicely http://realitysandwich.com/ > money_and_crisis_civilization . It ends with a positive view of > what can be done with the vaccuum created by the implosion of the > money system, which I think will be of interest to everyone on this > list. I would emphasise that the positive vision of the future is > FAR more energising (and therefore helpful) to readers than mere > doom-saying. > > Aaron > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Lowell Manning > To: Kevin Moore ; Stephnie deRuyter > Cc: Aaron ; le-members at list.wji.com > Sent: Sunday, October 05, 2008 8:37 PM > Subject: Re: [LE] NZ economic analysis > > Hi Kevin, > > As at end March the NZ total debt was about $413 billion made up > of $273b domestic Credit and $140b in accumulated current account > deficits. > > That indeed makes NZ in terms of GDP ($178b) one of the most > indebted countries in the developed world. > > Every year for each of the past 30 years or more we have borrowed > the entire nominal increase in GDP for that year in the form of the > current account deficit. > > There is little danger of implosion in New Zealand though, but just > like other countries especially US, the deficits and the borrowing > mean an ongoing shift , in the form of unearned (interest) income, > of the nation's wealth to the holders of bank deposits. > > In aggregate those in the productive economy are becoming poorer > while those in the investment sector are becoming richer, literally > by about NZ$30b in the year ended March 2008. > > The current turmoil in the financial sector in NZ is just a blip in > a much broader process. New Zealand is, despite the debt loading, > has nowhere near the problems faced in the US that have been > caused by rampant greed and fraud on a massive scale. > > Instead, the foreseeable future here is an ongoing perceptible > decline in the real living standards of ordinary people. > > Within the orthodox financial system the transfer of wealth from > poor to rich can be corrected ONLY by massive taxation of the > investment sector to create an equal and opposite monetary flow > from the investment sector to the productive sector, say roughly > $25billion in the year ended March 2008 > > Far and away the best solution is simply to remove interest on > deposits. > > The key to reform and economic survival is to provide a mechanism > where inflation in the investment sector and inflation in the > productive sector are matched. Removing interest on deposits > through statutory intervention will do that instantly. > > Otherwise, over time we will all become economic slaves in our own > land. > > Cheers, > > Lowell > > > On 5/10/2008, at 7:47 PM, Kevin Moore wrote: > > Quick summary: > > The last I read NZ debt level is higher per capita that the US. > > NZ imports a greater % oif its oil that the US. NZ government > budgets on oil at around $70 a barrel whether it is $90 or $140 a > barrel. > > Trade imbalance varies a lot throughout the year but on average NZ > spends approximate 1 billion a month more than it earns. > > Most farmers culled a lot of stock due to last summer's drought, so > are entering thr spring with very low stock numbers. > > Implosion coming soon. > > Helen and company have done a great job in sabotaging the economy. > but don't expect anything different from any of the others. > > K > > Survivors know the truth about energy, food and the environment, > and are preparing for the meltdown. > Perishers don't know the truth, or don't care, and still believe > the system will provide, even as it starts to collapse. > > > From: utr at raglan.net.nz > To: le-members at list.wji.com > Date: Sun, 5 Oct 2008 14:44:23 +1300 > Subject: [LE] NZ economic analysis > > It's great to read the excellent economic analysis that comes out > of the US alternative media but I'm wondering if anyone knows of > someone in New Zealand who is able to discuss the state of the New > Zealand economy in the same way that Mike Whitney on Information > Clearing House does (for instance) . > > The recent events in the US financial markets and the their impact > on the average citizen comes as no surprise since US writers have > done such an excellent job in outlining the problems over there. > It's frustrating though that I'm actually less informed about my > own country and don't know, for instance, how much debt local banks > are carrying, how much of that is in sub prime mortgages and just > how close to a meltdown we actually are. > > I know this is not strictly on topic (although the meltdown of the > national economy will probably provide fertile ground for LE) but I > thought someone around here might be able to help me out > > Aaron > > _______________________________________________ > LE-Members mailing list > LE-Members at wji.com > http://list.wji.com/mailman/listinfo/le-members > > > _______________________________________________ > LE-Members mailing list > LE-Members at wji.com > http://list.wji.com/mailman/listinfo/le-members -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://list.wji.com/pipermail/le-members/attachments/20081007/890c823e/attachment-0001.html From kevin_enviro at hotmail.com Tue Oct 7 16:45:59 2008 From: kevin_enviro at hotmail.com (Kevin Moore) Date: Tue, 7 Oct 2008 20:45:59 +0000 Subject: [LE] NZ economic analysis Message-ID: The last message was not intended to be insulting, but simply to steer the debate straight back to the real issues. I totally agree that permaculture and powerdown are the only 'solutions' to our predicament. However, having writtten three books on the topics of permaculture and powerdown, and spoken publicly on more occasions than I can remember on the need to permaculture and powerdown, I am now very aware that neither will be implemented until after the system crashes. And of course the window of opportunity for proper preparation has long vanished. I put forward proposals to Manukau City Council for a Permaculture Centre in 2003, 2004 and 2005. Presumably on those occasions the permaculture concept was blocked by the land 'developers' etc. I repeatedly got letters saying: 'Thank you for your presentation. No change to plan'. That's why I fled Manuakau (which I now assume is close to economic meltdown, having destroyed any possibility of sustainability in the pursuit of shopping mall and suburbia 'development'. My current local council (New Plymouth District Council) vigorously opposes permaculture and powerdown, removing them from the agenda whenever they appear, because New Plymouth is run by oil companies and hoteliers for the benefit of oil companies and hoteliers. NPDC is so afraid of the truth being spoken that the CEO placed a trespass order on me (which was founded on a substantial set of lies) in order to prevent me speaking any more at the council chambers. Meanwhile the propaganda arm of the council lies to the community on a continuous basis (as does the local newspaper, which point blank refused to report the fact that I was a guest speaker at the ASPO symposium on Permaculture and Powerdown in Nelson in 2007) with wholesale fabrications about the benefits of covering agricultural land with concrete and asphalt and how tourism will grow at a stagering rate over the next decade. It is all Orwellian Ministry of Truth, Ministry of Love neuro-linguistic programming, designed to facilitate the agenda of the greedy few at the expense of the many -effectively looting the till. Our economic, policital and judicial processes are geared to eco-vandalism and the protection fo those who facilitate it. Unfortunately the bulk of the population, being ignorant of the facts, swallows the nonsense put out by governments and councils etc. In view of the fact that governmentss anf councils are facilitating an Abrupt C;limate Change event, I personally regard the behaviour of the average coucnillor or politiicans and nothing short of criminal. Sadlym, the fact that (other than a few discussion groups on the fringes) our society is totally dominated by the criminal behaviour of those currently in power means that there will be no progress to a sustainable society until they fall or are removed from power. Neither will occur until the general populace has suffered horrendously: the Russian Revolution didn't get much traction until after 5 million soldiers had been lost at the front. The excesss of the Battle of Vedun continued until casualties reached 700,000. Most people in NZ are far too comfortable at the moment (using energy at 100 times the rate they should), and the vast majority have no idea what is just around the corner. Even when they are told, they don't believe the truth. Having given out dozens of books and DVDs (including a complete set to NPDC) I know the problem is not the information, but getting people to even look at it. Robert Atack has distrubuted thousands of DVDs on Permaculture and Powerdown over the past 5 years and absolutely nothing has changed: the farcical 'election' coming up in NZ will be all about 'tax cuts', and all the real issues will be avoided like the plague, with the corporate media fulfilling their role of concealing or actively suppressing the truth in order to keep the circus gpoing just a little bit longer. My analysis is not intended to promote 'gloom and doom' but simply to state how it is. As I have said to a lot of people when they have said: "We don't want to hear about gloom and doom." "Unless you deal with it now, it will be gloom and doom." But it makes no differnece, they still jusy sit her and do nothing. I have no illusions: ignorance and complacency will reign supreme for a lot longer yet. I read an interesting quote from Jay Hanson which is worth considering: "Humans did not evolve to be sustainable." The fact is we have to abandon 10,000 years of planet modification [for agriculture] and 400 years use of a fraudulent of monetary system and 300 years of gross squandering of energy before we have any chance of achieving sustanability: I am sure that at least 95% of the populaiton will vigorously object to such concepts at this stage in the game But not five years from now. Sorry that has been such a long rant, but the trruth must be told. Kind regards Kevin Survivors know the truth about energy, food and the environment, and are preparing for the meltdown. Perishers don't know the truth, or don't care, and still believe the system will provide, even as it starts to collapse. From: utr at raglan.net.nzTo: kevin_enviro at hotmail.comSubject: Re: [LE] NZ economic analysisDate: Wed, 8 Oct 2008 08:13:14 +1300 Kevin, I am well aware of most of that information - as I assume are most of the people on this list - and I was not trying to dismiss reality at all. Might I suggest that you read what I said a little closer before you write insulting comments about what I need to do. But to clarify, the point I was trying to make is that flooding people with a diet of doom laden information tends to leave them feeling helpless - *especially* when we provide them with no idea of what the world might be like when the current version of it falls apart. I would go further in fact and suggest that those of us who understand what is in store for our culture have a responsibility to provide some kind of positive vision - this might include discussions of permaculture or perhaps even alternative economic systems. So far the permaculturists are the only ones who make me feel like we migth have a future worth living in - rather than just a pale version of our current lifestyle where we all have to work hard just to survive. Aaron \ ----- Original Message ----- From: Kevin Moore To: Aaron ; le-members at list.wji.com Sent: Tuesday, October 07, 2008 10:40 PM Subject: RE: [LE] NZ economic analysis Aaron, I think it woiuld be very useful if you did not describe realistic projections based on the best scientific evidence as 'doomsaying'. Dismissing reality as doomsaying is not a particulalry productive strategy for dealing with it. The current [industrial] food production system will cease to exist one month after oil tankers stop coming to NZ to deliver cheap oil, or one year after the price of oil passes an indeterminable threshold beyond which its use beomes unfeasoble. Fertilisers topdressing, movement of farm animals, collection of milk, ploughing oif fields, collection and transport of produce are all totally dependent on cheap oil and the entire system will cave on at some stage over the next decade, if not the next 5 years. Tthat is 100$ guaranteed. And NZs industrialised agricultural system would collapse in one month if there were major conflagration in the Middle East. Irrespective of that, NZ can no longer obtain cheap phosphorus from Christmas Island or Nauru becasue the is none left there -we more or less completely mined them out in the twentieth century. Even Florida rock is on its last legs. The last remaining substantial reserves of phosphate are in Morroco -and we know what they think of western government constantly killing Muslims in Iraq, Afghanistan etc. I am not saying it will happen overnight, but at some stage in the near future we will have no phophorus imports, no urea, no potash and agricultural production will begin to plumet. But long before that happens, the cost of transport to overseas markets will cripple exports. Last season exports were severely hit by drought. Right now farmers are suffering (well actually it the livestock that is suffering) from attrociusly wet ground. We are headed into totally uncharted territory with respect to climate but would be very wise to expect and plan for ever greater extremes of drought and inundation -unlike offical bodies that perpetually tells us of the wonderful 'benefits' of global warming. As long as people continue to think in terms of money instead of in terms of energy, rapidly depleting resources and stable geochemistry we will make no progress whatsoever towards sustainability or even towards a realsitic economy for the next decade. Our real wealth is entirely generated by energy supplies and natural resources, not by money. For some inexplicable reason many people continue to identify money and its manipulation as the pathway to wealth. The moeny system is simply used as a mechanism for extracting wealth -effectively looting the planet. The reality is, there is very little left to loot. That, in a nutshell, is why we are going down right now. We have to go down. Going down is unavoidable. What we need to try to make the going down as 'comfortable' as possible. May I suggest you read everything on Energy Bulletin for a month or two and become totaly familiar with peak oil, peak phosphorus, peak water, peak climate etc. Regards Kevin Survivors know the truth about energy, food and the environment, and are preparing for the meltdown. Perishers don't know the truth, or don't care, and still believe the system will provide, even as it starts to collapse. From: utr at raglan.net.nzTo: le-members at list.wji.comDate: Tue, 7 Oct 2008 21:52:47 +1300Subject: Re: [LE] NZ economic analysis Lowell, thanks for your comments, that's actually the sort of analysis I was looking for - and much more specific than generalised doom-saying. I would probably add that another difference between NZ and the US is that we still have a genuine productive sector in the form of food production which is currently even more lucrative during a world wide food shortage. This will slow the rate of economic decline, but by how much I don't really know. Raf, thanks for those links. Kevin, I think you're right that current events are related to those events of the past but I think it goes back further than that, here's an article I just read which I thought tied it all together nicely http://realitysandwich.com/money_and_crisis_civilization . It ends with a positive view of what can be done with the vaccuum created by the implosion of the money system, which I think will be of interest to everyone on this list. I would emphasise that the positive vision of the future is FAR more energising (and therefore helpful) to readers than mere doom-saying. Aaron ----- Original Message ----- From: Lowell Manning To: Kevin Moore ; Stephnie deRuyter Cc: Aaron ; le-members at list.wji.com Sent: Sunday, October 05, 2008 8:37 PM Subject: Re: [LE] NZ economic analysis Hi Kevin, As at end March the NZ total debt was about $413 billion made up of $273b domestic Credit and $140b in accumulated current account deficits. That indeed makes NZ in terms of GDP ($178b) one of the most indebted countries in the developed world. Every year for each of the past 30 years or more we have borrowed the entire nominal increase in GDP for that year in the form of the current account deficit. There is little danger of implosion in New Zealand though, but just like other countries especially US, the deficits and the borrowing mean an ongoing shift , in the form of unearned (interest) income, of the nation's wealth to the holders of bank deposits. In aggregate those in the productive economy are becoming poorer while those in the investment sector are becoming richer, literally by about NZ$30b in the year ended March 2008. The current turmoil in the financial sector in NZ is just a blip in a much broader process. New Zealand is, despite the debt loading, has nowhere near the problems faced in the US that have been caused by rampant greed and fraud on a massive scale. Instead, the foreseeable future here is an ongoing perceptible decline in the real living standards of ordinary people. Within the orthodox financial system the transfer of wealth from poor to rich can be corrected ONLY by massive taxation of the investment sector to create an equal and opposite monetary flow from the investment sector to the productive sector, say roughly $25billion in the year ended March 2008 Far and away the best solution is simply to remove interest on deposits. The key to reform and economic survival is to provide a mechanism where inflation in the investment sector and inflation in the productive sector are matched. Removing interest on deposits through statutory intervention will do that instantly. Otherwise, over time we will all become economic slaves in our own land. Cheers, Lowell On 5/10/2008, at 7:47 PM, Kevin Moore wrote: Quick summary: The last I read NZ debt level is higher per capita that the US. NZ imports a greater % oif its oil that the US. NZ government budgets on oil at around $70 a barrel whether it is $90 or $140 a barrel.Trade imbalance varies a lot throughout the year but on average NZ spends approximate 1 billion a month more than it earns. Most farmers culled a lot of stock due to last summer's drought, so are entering thr spring with very low stock numbers. Implosion coming soon. Helen and company have done a great job in sabotaging the economy. but don't expect anything different from any of the others. K Survivors know the truth about energy, food and the environment, and are preparing for the meltdown. Perishers don't know the truth, or don't care, and still believe the system will provide, even as it starts to collapse. From: utr at raglan.net.nzTo: le-members at list.wji.comDate: Sun, 5 Oct 2008 14:44:23 +1300Subject: [LE] NZ economic analysis It's great to read the excellent economic analysis that comes out of the US alternative media but I'm wondering if anyone knows of someone in New Zealand who is able to discuss the state of the New Zealand economy in the same way that Mike Whitney on Information Clearing House does (for instance) . The recent events in the US financial markets and the their impact on the average citizen comes as no surprise since US writers have done such an excellent job in outlining the problems over there. It's frustrating though that I'm actually less informed about my own country and don't know, for instance, how much debt local banks are carrying, how much of that is in sub prime mortgages and just how close to a meltdown we actually are. I know this is not strictly on topic (although the meltdown of the national economy will probably provide fertile ground for LE) but I thought someone around here might be able to help me out Aaron _______________________________________________ LE-Members mailing list LE-Members at wji.com http://list.wji.com/mailman/listinfo/le-members _________________________________________________________________ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://list.wji.com/pipermail/le-members/attachments/20081007/7d1d4550/attachment-0001.html From kevin_enviro at hotmail.com Tue Oct 7 16:59:53 2008 From: kevin_enviro at hotmail.com (Kevin Moore) Date: Tue, 7 Oct 2008 20:59:53 +0000 Subject: [LE] NZ economic analysis In-Reply-To: <836BF531-7CA6-47B8-840B-344FFC87494F@kapiti.co.nz> References: <00b201c9268b$e51136b0$0201a8c0@aaron> <30668888-B8C8-4743-9C46-9E784B4B63EE@kapiti.co.nz> <009b01c9285a$12304210$0201a8c0@aaron> <836BF531-7CA6-47B8-840B-344FFC87494F@kapiti.co.nz> Message-ID: Spot on Lowell. I agree totally. I have been collecting urine and using urine for many years. My 2-year-old trees are growing phenomenally well as a result of urine application. I took on NPDC when they announced they would replace the Oakura septic tanks with a insane scheme to pump sewage 20 km to a grossly inefficient plant that sends 90% of the NPK nutrients straight out to sea. I proved in the public forum that the senior council offiicer, Rory Palmer, didn't know what he was talking about. Nevretheless the scheme is going ahead. Of course. Got to waste public money on white elephants. Original budget $7 million, current something like $40 million. Rory Palmer has moved to Rodney, to join his mate Roger Kerr-Newell, so look out: big trouble ahead for anyone living up there. Regards Keivn Survivors know the truth about energy, food and the environment, and are preparing for the meltdown. Perishers don't know the truth, or don't care, and still believe the system will provide, even as it starts to collapse. CC: utr at raglan.net.nz; le-members at list.wji.comFrom: manning at kapiti.co.nzSubject: Re: [LE] NZ economic analysisDate: Wed, 8 Oct 2008 08:53:34 +1300To: kevin_enviro at hotmail.com Just about the best fertiliser in the world is urine. The word has the same root as urea. Mix 10 parts water to 1 part urine and you certainly don't need artificially extracted urea. Of course, the implication in the long term is much smaller scale fully sustainable animal and plant husbandry pretty much along the lines Kevin is talking about. My point is that sustainable technology and fully worked models for sustainable development are freely available. For arguably the world's top site on sustainable integrated development go to www.flowman.nl or Google "Bakens Verzet". Best wishes, Lowell Manning On 7/10/2008, at 10:40 PM, Kevin Moore wrote: Aaron, I think it woiuld be very useful if you did not describe realistic projections based on the best scientific evidence as 'doomsaying'. Dismissing reality as doomsaying is not a particulalry productive strategy for dealing with it. The current [industrial] food production system will cease to exist one month after oil tankers stop coming to NZ to deliver cheap oil, or one year after the price of oil passes an indeterminable threshold beyond which its use beomes unfeasoble. Fertilisers topdressing, movement of farm animals, collection of milk, ploughing oif fields, collection and transport of produce are all totally dependent on cheap oil and the entire system will cave on at some stage over the next decade, if not the next 5 years. Tthat is 100$ guaranteed. And NZs industrialised agricultural system would collapse in one month if there were major conflagration in the Middle East. Irrespective of that, NZ can no longer obtain cheap phosphorus from Christmas Island or Nauru becasue the is none left there -we more or less completely mined them out in the twentieth century. Even Florida rock is on its last legs. The last remaining substantial reserves of phosphate are in Morroco -and we know what they think of western government constantly killing Muslims in Iraq, Afghanistan etc. I am not saying it will happen overnight, but at some stage in the near future we will have no phophorus imports, no urea, no potash and agricultural production will begin to plumet. But long before that happens, the cost of transport to overseas markets will cripple exports. Last season exports were severely hit by drought. Right now farmers are suffering (well actually it the livestock that is suffering) from attrociusly wet ground. We are headed into totally uncharted territory with respect to climate but would be very wise to expect and plan for ever greater extremes of drought and inundation -unlike offical bodies that perpetually tells us of the wonderful 'benefits' of global warming. As long as people continue to think in terms of money instead of in terms of energy, rapidly depleting resources and stable geochemistry we will make no progress whatsoever towards sustainability or even towards a realsitic economy for the next decade. Our real wealth is entirely generated by energy supplies and natural resources, not by money. For some inexplicable reason many people continue to identify money and its manipulation as the pathway to wealth. The moeny system is simply used as a mechanism for extracting wealth -effectively looting the planet. The reality is, there is very little left to loot. That, in a nutshell, is why we are going down right now. We have to go down. Going down is unavoidable. What we need to try to make the going down as 'comfortable' as possible. May I suggest you read everything on Energy Bulletin for a month or two and become totaly familiar with peak oil, peak phosphorus, peak water, peak climate etc. Regards Kevin Survivors know the truth about energy, food and the environment, and are preparing for the meltdown. Perishers don't know the truth, or don't care, and still believe the system will provide, even as it starts to collapse. From: utr at raglan.net.nzTo: le-members at list.wji.comDate: Tue, 7 Oct 2008 21:52:47 +1300Subject: Re: [LE] NZ economic analysis Lowell, thanks for your comments, that's actually the sort of analysis I was looking for - and much more specific than generalised doom-saying. I would probably add that another difference between NZ and the US is that we still have a genuine productive sector in the form of food production which is currently even more lucrative during a world wide food shortage. This will slow the rate of economic decline, but by how much I don't really know. Raf, thanks for those links. Kevin, I think you're right that current events are related to those events of the past but I think it goes back further than that, here's an article I just read which I thought tied it all together nicely http://realitysandwich.com/money_and_crisis_civilization . It ends with a positive view of what can be done with the vaccuum created by the implosion of the money system, which I think will be of interest to everyone on this list. I would emphasise that the positive vision of the future is FAR more energising (and therefore helpful) to readers than mere doom-saying. Aaron ----- Original Message ----- From: Lowell Manning To: Kevin Moore ; Stephnie deRuyter Cc: Aaron ; le-members at list.wji.com Sent: Sunday, October 05, 2008 8:37 PM Subject: Re: [LE] NZ economic analysis Hi Kevin, As at end March the NZ total debt was about $413 billion made up of $273b domestic Credit and $140b in accumulated current account deficits. That indeed makes NZ in terms of GDP ($178b) one of the most indebted countries in the developed world. Every year for each of the past 30 years or more we have borrowed the entire nominal increase in GDP for that year in the form of the current account deficit. There is little danger of implosion in New Zealand though, but just like other countries especially US, the deficits and the borrowing mean an ongoing shift , in the form of unearned (interest) income, of the nation's wealth to the holders of bank deposits. In aggregate those in the productive economy are becoming poorer while those in the investment sector are becoming richer, literally by about NZ$30b in the year ended March 2008. The current turmoil in the financial sector in NZ is just a blip in a much broader process. New Zealand is, despite the debt loading, has nowhere near the problems faced in the US that have been caused by rampant greed and fraud on a massive scale. Instead, the foreseeable future here is an ongoing perceptible decline in the real living standards of ordinary people. Within the orthodox financial system the transfer of wealth from poor to rich can be corrected ONLY by massive taxation of the investment sector to create an equal and opposite monetary flow from the investment sector to the productive sector, say roughly $25billion in the year ended March 2008 Far and away the best solution is simply to remove interest on deposits. The key to reform and economic survival is to provide a mechanism where inflation in the investment sector and inflation in the productive sector are matched. Removing interest on deposits through statutory intervention will do that instantly. Otherwise, over time we will all become economic slaves in our own land. Cheers, Lowell On 5/10/2008, at 7:47 PM, Kevin Moore wrote: Quick summary: The last I read NZ debt level is higher per capita that the US. NZ imports a greater % oif its oil that the US. NZ government budgets on oil at around $70 a barrel whether it is $90 or $140 a barrel.Trade imbalance varies a lot throughout the year but on average NZ spends approximate 1 billion a month more than it earns. Most farmers culled a lot of stock due to last summer's drought, so are entering thr spring with very low stock numbers. Implosion coming soon. Helen and company have done a great job in sabotaging the economy. but don't expect anything different from any of the others. K Survivors know the truth about energy, food and the environment, and are preparing for the meltdown. Perishers don't know the truth, or don't care, and still believe the system will provide, even as it starts to collapse. From: utr at raglan.net.nzTo: le-members at list.wji.comDate: Sun, 5 Oct 2008 14:44:23 +1300Subject: [LE] NZ economic analysis It's great to read the excellent economic analysis that comes out of the US alternative media but I'm wondering if anyone knows of someone in New Zealand who is able to discuss the state of the New Zealand economy in the same way that Mike Whitney on Information Clearing House does (for instance) . The recent events in the US financial markets and the their impact on the average citizen comes as no surprise since US writers have done such an excellent job in outlining the problems over there. It's frustrating though that I'm actually less informed about my own country and don't know, for instance, how much debt local banks are carrying, how much of that is in sub prime mortgages and just how close to a meltdown we actually are. I know this is not strictly on topic (although the meltdown of the national economy will probably provide fertile ground for LE) but I thought someone around here might be able to help me out Aaron _______________________________________________ LE-Members mailing list LE-Members at wji.com http://list.wji.com/mailman/listinfo/le-members _______________________________________________ LE-Members mailing list LE-Members at wji.com http://list.wji.com/mailman/listinfo/le-members _________________________________________________________________ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://list.wji.com/pipermail/le-members/attachments/20081007/bd38a7f8/attachment-0001.html From kevin_enviro at hotmail.com Tue Oct 7 18:27:11 2008 From: kevin_enviro at hotmail.com (Kevin Moore) Date: Tue, 7 Oct 2008 22:27:11 +0000 Subject: [LE] NZ economic analysis In-Reply-To: <009b01c9285a$12304210$0201a8c0@aaron> References: <00b201c9268b$e51136b0$0201a8c0@aaron> <30668888-B8C8-4743-9C46-9E784B4B63EE@kapiti.co.nz> <009b01c9285a$12304210$0201a8c0@aaron> Message-ID: A useful resource for anyone who is unaware just how close to energy meltdown the US currently is. Kevin Simmons_Matthew_ASPOUSA2008.pdf [~1442K] Survivors know the truth about energy, food and the environment, and are preparing for the meltdown. Perishers don't know the truth, or don't care, and still believe the system will provide, even as it starts to collapse. From: utr at raglan.net.nzTo: le-members at list.wji.comDate: Tue, 7 Oct 2008 21:52:47 +1300Subject: Re: [LE] NZ economic analysis Lowell, thanks for your comments, that's actually the sort of analysis I was looking for - and much more specific than generalised doom-saying. I would probably add that another difference between NZ and the US is that we still have a genuine productive sector in the form of food production which is currently even more lucrative during a world wide food shortage. This will slow the rate of economic decline, but by how much I don't really know. Raf, thanks for those links. Kevin, I think you're right that current events are related to those events of the past but I think it goes back further than that, here's an article I just read which I thought tied it all together nicely http://realitysandwich.com/money_and_crisis_civilization . It ends with a positive view of what can be done with the vaccuum created by the implosion of the money system, which I think will be of interest to everyone on this list. I would emphasise that the positive vision of the future is FAR more energising (and therefore helpful) to readers than mere doom-saying. Aaron ----- Original Message ----- From: Lowell Manning To: Kevin Moore ; Stephnie deRuyter Cc: Aaron ; le-members at list.wji.com Sent: Sunday, October 05, 2008 8:37 PM Subject: Re: [LE] NZ economic analysis Hi Kevin, As at end March the NZ total debt was about $413 billion made up of $273b domestic Credit and $140b in accumulated current account deficits. That indeed makes NZ in terms of GDP ($178b) one of the most indebted countries in the developed world. Every year for each of the past 30 years or more we have borrowed the entire nominal increase in GDP for that year in the form of the current account deficit. There is little danger of implosion in New Zealand though, but just like other countries especially US, the deficits and the borrowing mean an ongoing shift , in the form of unearned (interest) income, of the nation's wealth to the holders of bank deposits. In aggregate those in the productive economy are becoming poorer while those in the investment sector are becoming richer, literally by about NZ$30b in the year ended March 2008. The current turmoil in the financial sector in NZ is just a blip in a much broader process. New Zealand is, despite the debt loading, has nowhere near the problems faced in the US that have been caused by rampant greed and fraud on a massive scale. Instead, the foreseeable future here is an ongoing perceptible decline in the real living standards of ordinary people. Within the orthodox financial system the transfer of wealth from poor to rich can be corrected ONLY by massive taxation of the investment sector to create an equal and opposite monetary flow from the investment sector to the productive sector, say roughly $25billion in the year ended March 2008 Far and away the best solution is simply to remove interest on deposits. The key to reform and economic survival is to provide a mechanism where inflation in the investment sector and inflation in the productive sector are matched. Removing interest on deposits through statutory intervention will do that instantly. Otherwise, over time we will all become economic slaves in our own land. Cheers, Lowell On 5/10/2008, at 7:47 PM, Kevin Moore wrote: Quick summary: The last I read NZ debt level is higher per capita that the US. NZ imports a greater % oif its oil that the US. NZ government budgets on oil at around $70 a barrel whether it is $90 or $140 a barrel.Trade imbalance varies a lot throughout the year but on average NZ spends approximate 1 billion a month more than it earns. Most farmers culled a lot of stock due to last summer's drought, so are entering thr spring with very low stock numbers. Implosion coming soon. Helen and company have done a great job in sabotaging the economy. but don't expect anything different from any of the others. K Survivors know the truth about energy, food and the environment, and are preparing for the meltdown. Perishers don't know the truth, or don't care, and still believe the system will provide, even as it starts to collapse. From: utr at raglan.net.nzTo: le-members at list.wji.comDate: Sun, 5 Oct 2008 14:44:23 +1300Subject: [LE] NZ economic analysis It's great to read the excellent economic analysis that comes out of the US alternative media but I'm wondering if anyone knows of someone in New Zealand who is able to discuss the state of the New Zealand economy in the same way that Mike Whitney on Information Clearing House does (for instance) . The recent events in the US financial markets and the their impact on the average citizen comes as no surprise since US writers have done such an excellent job in outlining the problems over there. It's frustrating though that I'm actually less informed about my own country and don't know, for instance, how much debt local banks are carrying, how much of that is in sub prime mortgages and just how close to a meltdown we actually are. I know this is not strictly on topic (although the meltdown of the national economy will probably provide fertile ground for LE) but I thought someone around here might be able to help me out Aaron _______________________________________________ LE-Members mailing list LE-Members at wji.com http://list.wji.com/mailman/listinfo/le-members _________________________________________________________________ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://list.wji.com/pipermail/le-members/attachments/20081007/49523380/attachment.html From kevin_enviro at hotmail.com Tue Oct 7 19:28:07 2008 From: kevin_enviro at hotmail.com (Kevin Moore) Date: Tue, 7 Oct 2008 23:28:07 +0000 Subject: [LE] NZ economic analysis Message-ID: The world as we knew it did indeed end for many people around the world in 2005. Most of the carnage was well hidden because the corporate media chose not to report it (of course). Western economies have been surviving by pushing increasing numbers of poor people straight off the cliff, particulalry those living in Africa, Asia and the Caribbean etc. The oil supply did indeed peak over 2005-6, just as predicted. We are now trudging along the bumpy plateau, with all sorts of scams and energy squandering schemes propping things up in the short term, whilst making all our problems much worse in the long term. Such has been the desperation to keep up the appearance of normality since 2005. The extraction data for 2008 will prove very interesting reading, since Russia seems to have joined the long list of nations falling off the extraction cliff. The fact that there has been a greater delay in the arrival of the crisis for NZ than some of us thought should be seen as a great blessing, an opportunity to heed the warnings and prepare. However, virtually no preparatiosn have been made, other than by a handful of 'awake' people. The powers that be have used the past three years to create even more dysfunction than existed in 2005 and, naturally enough, the bulk of the population has followed that lead. NZ imports 80% of its oil, and I stand by the statement that if the oil tankers stopped arriving (for whatever reason) the NZ economy would be in a tailspin in a week and grind to a near standstill in a month. Geochemistry and geophysics will prevail, whatever anyone might say or think to the contrary. If the meltdown does not come as quickly as some of us thought, we should be extremely thankful. I suspect we will discover over the next six months how useful wishful thinking or human ingenuity are in a world of declining fossil energy supply. Regards Kevin Survivors know the truth about energy, food and the environment, and are preparing for the meltdown. Perishers don't know the truth, or don't care, and still believe the system will provide, even as it starts to collapse. Date: Wed, 8 Oct 2008 10:33:32 +1300To: kevin_enviro at hotmail.comFrom: baddock at earthlight.co.nzSubject: Re: [LE] NZ economic analysis The difficulty Kevin, is that very often people making categorical predictions of things ending are simply discredited when those things don't come to pass. In our first conversation in 2005 you said the oil-based world would collapse by year's end 2005. Before christmas was, I think, your term. Your current predictions are a little less specific, but remain dotted with quite categorical assertions of specific timeframes, such as current food production ceasing a month after oil imports stop, and our agriculture system caving in within the next decade. You assert that is 100% guaranteed. That is over-stating things beyond realistic projection. Your flawed history of prediction and wider observation makes the guarantee you assert incredible, in the true sense of the word. The predictions of the food production system ending within a month appears to take no account of any responsive action - and experience and observation shows that people will find ways to prop up ailing systems for remarkably long times. Tsunamis cause cataclysmic collapses. Human events seldom do. Anybody who has tried to actively eliminate a widespread practice will attest to the difficulties and prolonged effort required - let alone ceasing a practice that the majority of the population are trying to preserve. The alternatives people turn to in order to prop up the system may not be sustainable or attractive, but I think we can rest assured people will find ways to keep their part of the system staggering along for quite some time. So while I, and I'm confident most people on this discussion list, are very conscious of the levels of oil dependency, the scientific evidence, and long term unsustainability of many current practices, I'm inclined to agree with Aaron that understanding of the way ahead is better served by contained specific analysis than by cataclysmic assertions. Allan Aaron, I think it woiuld be very useful if you did not describe realistic projections based on the best scientific evidence as 'doomsaying'. Dismissing reality as doomsaying is not a particulalry productive strategy for dealing with it. The current [industrial] food production system will cease to exist one month after oil tankers stop coming to NZ to deliver cheap oil, or one year after the price of oil passes an indeterminable threshold beyond which its use beomes unfeasoble. Fertilisers topdressing, movement of farm animals, collection of milk, ploughing oif fields, collection and transport of produce are all totally dependent on cheap oil and the entire system will cave on at some stage over the next decade, if not the next 5 years. Tthat is 100$ guaranteed. And NZs industrialised agricultural system would collapse in one month if there were major conflagration in the Middle East. Irrespective of that, NZ can no longer obtain cheap phosphorus from Christmas Island or Nauru becasue the is none left there -we more or less completely mined them out in the twentieth century. Even Florida rock is on its last legs. The last remaining substantial reserves of phosphate are in Morroco -and we know what they think of western government constantly killing Muslims in Iraq, Afghanistan etc. I am not saying it will happen overnight, but at some stage in the near future we will have no phophorus imports, no urea, no potash and agricultural production will begin to plumet. But long before that happens, the cost of transport to overseas markets will cripple exports. Last season exports were severely hit by drought. Right now farmers are suffering (well actually it the livestock that is suffering) from attrociusly wet ground. We are headed into totally uncharted territory with respect to climate but would be very wise to expect and plan for ever greater extremes of drought and inundation -unlike offical bodies that perpetually tells us of the wonderful 'benefits' of global warming. As long as people continue to think in terms of money instead of in terms of energy, rapidly depleting resources and stable geochemistry we will make no progress whatsoever towards sustainability or even towards a realsitic economy for the next decade. Our real wealth is entirely generated by energy supplies and natural resources, not by money. For some inexplicable reason many people continue to identify money and its manipulation as the pathway to wealth. The moeny system is simply used as a mechanism for extracting wealth -effectively looting the planet. The reality is, there is very little left to loot. That, in a nutshell, is why we are going down right now. We have to go down. Going down is unavoidable. What we need to try to make the going down as 'comfortable' as possible. May I suggest you read everything on Energy Bulletin for a month or two and become totaly familiar with peak oil, peak phosphorus, peak water, peak climate etc. Regards Kevin Survivors know the truth about energy, food and the environment, and are preparing for the meltdown. Perishers don't know the truth, or don't care, and still believe the system will provide, even as it starts to collapse. From: utr at raglan.net.nzTo: le-members at list.wji.comDate: Tue, 7 Oct 2008 21:52:47 +1300Subject: Re: [LE] NZ economic analysis Lowell, thanks for your comments, that's actually the sort of analysis I was looking for - and much more specific than generalised doom-saying. I would probably add that another difference between NZ and the US is that we still have a genuine productive sector in the form of food production which is currently even more lucrative during a world wide food shortage. This will slow the rate of economic decline, but by how much I don't really know. Raf, thanks for those links. Kevin, I think you're right that current events are related to those events of the past but I think it goes back further than that, here's an article I just read which I thought tied it all together nicely http://realitysandwich.com/money_and_crisis_civilization . It ends with a positive view of what can be done with the vaccuum created by the implosion of the money system, which I think will be of interest to everyone on this list. I would emphasise that the positive vision of the future is FAR more energising (and therefore helpful) to readers than mere doom-saying. Aaron ----- Original Message ----- From: Lowell Manning To: Kevin Moore ; Stephnie deRuyter Cc: Aaron ; le-members at list.wji.com Sent: Sunday, October 05, 2008 8:37 PM Subject: Re: [LE] NZ economic analysis Hi Kevin, As at end March the NZ total debt was about $413 billion made up of $273b domestic Credit and $140b in accumulated current account deficits. That indeed makes NZ in terms of GDP ($178b) one of the most indebted countries in the developed world. Every year for each of the past 30 years or more we have borrowed the entire nominal increase in GDP for that year in the form of the current account deficit. There is little danger of implosion in New Zealand though, but just like other countries especially US, the deficits and the borrowing mean an ongoing shift , in the form of unearned (interest) income, of the nation's wealth to the holders of bank deposits. In aggregate those in the productive economy are becoming poorer while those in the investment sector are becoming richer, literally by about NZ$30b in the year ended March 2008. The current turmoil in the financial sector in NZ is just a blip in a much broader process. New Zealand is, despite the debt loading, has nowhere near the problems faced in the US that have been caused by rampant greed and fraud on a massive scale. Instead, the foreseeable future here is an ongoing perceptible decline in the real living standards of ordinary people. Within the orthodox financial system the transfer of wealth from poor to rich can be corrected ONLY by massive taxation of the investment sector to create an equal and opposite monetary flow from the investment sector to the productive sector, say roughly $25billion in the year ended March 2008 Far and away the best solution is simply to remove interest on deposits. The key to reform and economic survival is to provide a mechanism where inflation in the investment sector and inflation in the productive sector are matched. Removing interest on deposits through statutory intervention will do that instantly. Otherwise, over time we will all become economic slaves in our own land. Cheers, Lowell On 5/10/2008, at 7:47 PM, Kevin Moore wrote: Quick summary: The last I read NZ debt level is higher per capita that the US. NZ imports a greater % oif its oil that the US. NZ government budgets on oil at around $70 a barrel whether it is $90 or $140 a barrel.Trade imbalance varies a lot throughout the year but on average NZ spends approximate 1 billion a month more than it earns. Most farmers culled a lot of stock due to last summer's drought, so are entering thr spring with very low stock numbers. Implosion coming soon. Helen and company have done a great job in sabotaging the economy. but don't expect anything different from any of the others. K Survivors know the truth about energy, food and the environment, and are preparing for the meltdown. Perishers don't know the truth, or don't care, and still believe the system will provide, even as it starts to collapse. From: utr at raglan.net.nzTo: le-members at list.wji.comDate: Sun, 5 Oct 2008 14:44:23 +1300Subject: [LE] NZ economic analysis It's great to read the excellent economic analysis that comes out of the US alternative media but I'm wondering if anyone knows of someone in New Zealand who is able to discuss the state of the New Zealand economy in the same way that Mike Whitney on Information Clearing House does (for instance) . The recent events in the US financial markets and the their impact on the average citizen comes as no surprise since US writers have done such an excellent job in outlining the problems over there. It's frustrating though that I'm actually less informed about my own country and don't know, for instance, how much debt local banks are carrying, how much of that is in sub prime mortgages and just how close to a meltdown we actually are. I know this is not strictly on topic (although the meltdown of the national economy will probably provide fertile ground for LE) but I thought someone around here might be able to help me out Aaron _______________________________________________ LE-Members mailing list LE-Members at wji.com http://list.wji.com/mailman/listinfo/le-members _______________________________________________LE-Members mailing listLE-Members at wji.comhttp://list.wji.com/mailman/listinfo/le-members _________________________________________________________________ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://list.wji.com/pipermail/le-members/attachments/20081007/e11c2951/attachment-0001.html From iacomus at iacomus.com Tue Oct 7 20:52:28 2008 From: iacomus at iacomus.com (Martin Sparkes) Date: Wed, 8 Oct 2008 13:52:28 +1300 Subject: [LE] NZ economic analysis In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Have to agree with the sentiment of what you are saying. It all comes down to timing, doesn't it. How many bullets can we dodge... _____ From: le-members-bounces at wji.com [mailto:le-members-bounces at wji.com] On Behalf Of Kevin Moore Sent: Wednesday, 8 October 2008 12:28 p.m. To: Al Baddock Cc: le-members at list.wji.com Subject: Re: [LE] NZ economic analysis The world as we knew it did indeed end for many people around the world in 2005. Most of the carnage was well hidden because the corporate media chose not to report it (of course). Western economies have been surviving by pushing increasing numbers of poor people straight off the cliff, particulalry those living in Africa, Asia and the Caribbean etc. The oil supply did indeed peak over 2005-6, just as predicted. We are now trudging along the bumpy plateau, with all sorts of scams and energy squandering schemes propping things up in the short term, whilst making all our problems much worse in the long term. Such has been the desperation to keep up the appearance of normality since 2005. The extraction data for 2008 will prove very interesting reading, since Russia seems to have joined the long list of nations falling off the extraction cliff. The fact that there has been a greater delay in the arrival of the crisis for NZ than some of us thought should be seen as a great blessing, an opportunity to heed the warnings and prepare. However, virtually no preparatiosn have been made, other than by a handful of 'awake' people. The powers that be have used the past three years to create even more dysfunction than existed in 2005 and, naturally enough, the bulk of the population has followed that lead. NZ imports 80% of its oil, and I stand by the statement that if the oil tankers stopped arriving (for whatever reason) the NZ economy would be in a tailspin in a week and grind to a near standstill in a month. Geochemistry and geophysics will prevail, whatever anyone might say or think to the contrary. If the meltdown does not come as quickly as some of us thought, we should be extremely thankful. I suspect we will discover over the next six months how useful wishful thinking or human ingenuity are in a world of declining fossil energy supply. Regards Kevin Survivors know the truth about energy, food and the environment, and are preparing for the meltdown. Perishers don't know the truth, or don't care, and still believe the system will provide, even as it starts to collapse. _____ Date: Wed, 8 Oct 2008 10:33:32 +1300 To: kevin_enviro at hotmail.com From: baddock at earthlight.co.nz Subject: Re: [LE] NZ economic analysis The difficulty Kevin, is that very often people making categorical predictions of things ending are simply discredited when those things don't come to pass. In our first conversation in 2005 you said the oil-based world would collapse by year's end 2005. Before christmas was, I think, your term. Your current predictions are a little less specific, but remain dotted with quite categorical assertions of specific timeframes, such as current food production ceasing a month after oil imports stop, and our agriculture system caving in within the next decade. You assert that is 100% guaranteed. That is over-stating things beyond realistic projection. Your flawed history of prediction and wider observation makes the guarantee you assert incredible, in the true sense of the word. The predictions of the food production system ending within a month appears to take no account of any responsive action - and experience and observation shows that people will find ways to prop up ailing systems for remarkably long times. Tsunamis cause cataclysmic collapses. Human events seldom do. Anybody who has tried to actively eliminate a widespread practice will attest to the difficulties and prolonged effort required - let alone ceasing a practice that the majority of the population are trying to preserve. The alternatives people turn to in order to prop up the system may not be sustainable or attractive, but I think we can rest assured people will find ways to keep their part of the system staggering along for quite some time. So while I, and I'm confident most people on this discussion list, are very conscious of the levels of oil dependency, the scientific evidence, and long term unsustainability of many current practices, I'm inclined to agree with Aaron that understanding of the way ahead is better served by contained specific analysis than by cataclysmic assertions. Allan Aaron, I think it woiuld be very useful if you did not describe realistic projections based on the best scientific evidence as 'doomsaying'. Dismissing reality as doomsaying is not a particulalry productive strategy for dealing with it. The current [industrial] food production system will cease to exist one month after oil tankers stop coming to NZ to deliver cheap oil, or one year after the price of oil passes an indeterminable threshold beyond which its use beomes unfeasoble. Fertilisers topdressing, movement of farm animals, collection of milk, ploughing oif fields, collection and transport of produce are all totally dependent on cheap oil and the entire system will cave on at some stage over the next decade, if not the next 5 years. Tthat is 100$ guaranteed. And NZs industrialised agricultural system would collapse in one month if there were major conflagration in the Middle East. Irrespective of that, NZ can no longer obtain cheap phosphorus from Christmas Island or Nauru becasue the is none left there -we more or less completely mined them out in the twentieth century. Even Florida rock is on its last legs. The last remaining substantial reserves of phosphate are in Morroco -and we know what they think of western government constantly killing Muslims in Iraq, Afghanistan etc. I am not saying it will happen overnight, but at some stage in the near future we will have no phophorus imports, no urea, no potash and agricultural production will begin to plumet. But long before that happens, the cost of transport to overseas markets will cripple exports. Last season exports were severely hit by drought. Right now farmers are suffering (well actually it the livestock that is suffering) from attrociusly wet ground. We are headed into totally uncharted territory with respect to climate but would be very wise to expect and plan for ever greater extremes of drought and inundation -unlike offical bodies that perpetually tells us of the wonderful 'benefits' of global warming. As long as people continue to think in terms of money instead of in terms of energy, rapidly depleting resources and stable geochemistry we will make no progress whatsoever towards sustainability or even towards a realsitic economy for the next decade. Our real wealth is entirely generated by energy supplies and natural resources, not by money. For some inexplicable reason many people continue to identify money and its manipulation as the pathway to wealth. The moeny system is simply used as a mechanism for extracting wealth -effectively looting the planet. The reality is, there is very little left to loot. That, in a nutshell, is why we are going down right now. We have to go down. Going down is unavoidable. What we need to try to make the going down as 'comfortable' as possible. May I suggest you read everything on Energy Bulletin for a month or two and become totaly familiar with peak oil, peak phosphorus, peak water, peak climate etc. Regards Kevin Survivors know the truth about energy, food and the environment, and are preparing for the meltdown. Perishers don't know the truth, or don't care, and still believe the system will provide, even as it starts to collapse. _____ From: utr at raglan.net.nz To: le-members at list.wji.com Date: Tue, 7 Oct 2008 21:52:47 +1300 Subject: Re: [LE] NZ economic analysis Lowell, thanks for your comments, that's actually the sort of analysis I was looking for - and much more specific than generalised doom-saying. I would probably add that another difference between NZ and the US is that we still have a genuine productive sector in the form of food production which is currently even more lucrative during a world wide food shortage. This will slow the rate of economic decline, but by how much I don't really know. Raf, thanks for those links. Kevin, I think you're right that current events are related to those events of the past but I think it goes back further than that, here's an article I just read which I thought tied it all together nicely http://realitysandwich.com/money_and_crisis_civilization . It ends with a positive view of what can be done with the vaccuum created by the implosion of the money system, which I think will be of interest to everyone on this list. I would emphasise that the positive vision of the future is FAR more energising (and therefore helpful) to readers than mere doom-saying. Aaron ----- Original Message ----- From: Lowell Manning To: Kevin Moore ; Stephnie deRuyter Cc: Aaron ; le-members at list.wji.com Sent: Sunday, October 05, 2008 8:37 PM Subject: Re: [LE] NZ economic analysis Hi Kevin, As at end March the NZ total debt was about $413 billion made up of $273b domestic Credit and $140b in accumulated current account deficits. That indeed makes NZ in terms of GDP ($178b) one of the most indebted countries in the developed world. Every year for each of the past 30 years or more we have borrowed the entire nominal increase in GDP for that year in the form of the current account deficit. There is little danger of implosion in New Zealand though, but just like other countries especially US, the deficits and the borrowing mean an ongoing shift , in the form of unearned (interest) income, of the nation's wealth to the holders of bank deposits. In aggregate those in the productive economy are becoming poorer while those in the investment sector are becoming richer, literally by about NZ$30b in the year ended March 2008. The current turmoil in the financial sector in NZ is just a blip in a much broader process. New Zealand is, despite the debt loading, has nowhere near the problems faced in the US that have been caused by rampant greed and fraud on a massive scale. Instead, the foreseeable future here is an ongoing perceptible decline in the real living standards of ordinary people. Within the orthodox financial system the transfer of wealth from poor to rich can be corrected ONLY by massive taxation of the investment sector to create an equal and opposite monetary flow from the investment sector to the productive sector, say roughly $25billion in the year ended March 2008 Far and away the best solution is simply to remove interest on deposits. The key to reform and economic survival is to provide a mechanism where inflation in the investment sector and inflation in the productive sector are matched. Removing interest on deposits through statutory intervention will do that instantly. Otherwise, over time we will all become economic slaves in our own land. Cheers, Lowell On 5/10/2008, at 7:47 PM, Kevin Moore wrote: Quick summary: The last I read NZ debt level is higher per capita that the US. NZ imports a greater % oif its oil that the US. NZ government budgets on oil at around $70 a barrel whether it is $90 or $140 a barrel. Trade imbalance varies a lot throughout the year but on average NZ spends approximate 1 billion a month more than it earns. Most farmers culled a lot of stock due to last summer's drought, so are entering thr spring with very low stock numbers. Implosion coming soon. Helen and company have done a great job in sabotaging the economy. but don't expect anything different from any of the others. K Survivors know the truth about energy, food and the environment, and are preparing for the meltdown. Perishers don't know the truth, or don't care, and still believe the system will provide, even as it starts to collapse. _____ From: utr at raglan.net.nz To: le-members at list.wji.com Date: Sun, 5 Oct 2008 14:44:23 +1300 Subject: [LE] NZ economic analysis It's great to read the excellent economic analysis that comes out of the US alternative media but I'm wondering if anyone knows of someone in New Zealand who is able to discuss the state of the New Zealand economy in the same way that Mike Whitney on Information Clearing House does (for instance) . The recent events in the US financial markets and the their impact on the average citizen comes as no surprise since US writers have done such an excellent job in outlining the problems over there. It's frustrating though that I'm actually less informed about my own country and don't know, for instance, how much debt local banks are carrying, how much of that is in sub prime mortgages and just how close to a meltdown we actually are. I know this is not strictly on topic (although the meltdown of the national economy will probably provide fertile ground for LE) but I thought someone around here might be able to help me out Aaron _____ _______________________________________________ LE-Members mailing list LE-Members at wji.com http://list.wji.com/mailman/listinfo/le-members _____ _______________________________________________ LE-Members mailing list LE-Members at wji.com http://list.wji.com/mailman/listinfo/le-members _____ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://list.wji.com/pipermail/le-members/attachments/20081007/3efeacb2/attachment-0001.html From kevin_enviro at hotmail.com Tue Oct 7 22:06:07 2008 From: kevin_enviro at hotmail.com (Kevin Moore) Date: Wed, 8 Oct 2008 02:06:07 +0000 Subject: [LE] NZ economic analysis Message-ID: Bearing in mind that the oil reserves of Saudi Arabia are a state secret and no independent auditshave been permitted by the Saudi government, and bearing in the extent of hurricane damage is unpredicatable, and bearing in mind which particular oil pipeline will be blown up next week cannot be prediced, the kind of precision you seem to require is simply not possible, Allan. Under such circumstances it is clearly prudent to adopt the precautionary principle*, on the basis that early preparation does no harm (and indeed it provides fairly immendiate benefits in most situations), whereas late or no preparation results in catastrophe. *Published as hard copy in STF and on oilcrash and other websites in 2005. Note also that PP was a chapter heading in Burn Baby Burn, 2001. Our problem is not one of information, but the manipulation of society by money lenders etc. and the role of gatekeepers, who block information that does not suit their [personal gain] agendas. All that plus the refusal of society in general to accept crucial information or to act upon it. I don't mind difficult tasks. It's the tasks that are impossible I give up on. Regards Kevin The Precautionary Principle I wonder how many New Zealanders recall the case of the Nigerian musician who toured the country a few years ago and, knowing he was HIV positive, had unprotected sex with several women and, in the process, infected them with the AIDS virus. We might say: ?How terrible?, or ?More fool them?. But however we may look at it morally, no medical treatment for them, nor prison sentence for the perpetrator, nothing in fact will ever restore things to how they were before the disastrous encounters. The damage has been done and it is too late. Yet simple precautions could have avoided so much anguish for so many. Scientists call this ?be careful, take precautions? approach to dealing with potential dangers The Precautionary Principle. It is extraordinary simple: if you are not sure it is safe, don?t do it. Sadly, time after time, we have seen the Precautionary Principle forgotten, ignored, thrown out the window. I will not bother to catalogue the dozens of examples from history, but a notable example was coating almost everything in sight in with the ?wonder chemical? DDT during the 1940s and 50s: everything from servicemen with parasites to lettuces with larvae. It continued till the entire planet?s ecosystem was contaminated, then [a couple of decades later, when it was too late] it was discovered that DDT was not actually safe after all and was causing disastrous changes to the biochemistry of a wide range of living things, especially those at the top of the food chain . But DDT breaks down slowly, so the legacy of toxicity that resulted from that over-zealous use of DDT will remain, perhaps for centuries. Why raise this now? Because on the energy front, policy makers don?t know about, have forgotten about, have deliberately ignored, or decided to throw out The Precautionary Principle. And in doing so, they are jeopardising the future of the planet, just as much as if they were to continue to encourage the widespread use of DDT. When we think about oil, we can base our assumptions on the best available evidence, or we can ignore the evidence and assume we live in some fantastic world where scientific evidence is refutable. In the extremity of fantasy, we can assume oil is an infinite resource that will last for ever because the Earth produces it as fast as we use it. Fortunately, few people, not even our Minister of Energy, hold this opinion. Most rational people acknowledge that oil is finite and therefore, at some point of time, we must reach a peak in extraction that corresponds to approximately half the world?s endowment being used up. If we accept that Peak Oil is a real phenomenon, then the next obvious question is: ?When will the peak of extraction from the earth occur?? The answer to this depends very much on who you ask and ranges from around 2007 to after 2067. Oil geologists tend to favour 2007; economists tend to favour 2067. That does expose the whimsical contradiction that economists appear to think themselves far better at finding oil than oil geologists. For an official word on the matter, we can quote the Trevor Mallard letter of 31st Jan 2005: ?probability highest around 2037?. Now from the perspective of the ordinary citizen living today, a peak in extraction in 2037 is very a different matter from a peak in 2007. A peak in extraction in 2037 implies we have decades to develop alternatives and can continue on our present course for some time yet (ignoring the global warming aspect of course*). On the other hand, a peak in 2007 corresponds with the end of society as we know it by around 2017 (if not well before then), since we would be experiencing declining supplies and rising costs and there would be no time to develop strategies to cope. Although we can never predict the peak exactly, clearly a reasonably close definition of the timing of Peak Oil is crucial to our energy planning and getting it wrong will be disastrous. That brings me back to The Precautionary Principle: Assuming that a peak in extraction will occur around 2007 spurs society into rapid action and results in the radical changes that enable society to work toward a soft landing -there can be no delusions about technical fixes that maintain current lifestyles. Should the peak not occur in 2007, we would have no regrets, knowing that we had begun a transition to a safer and more sustainable society. On the other hand, should we ignore the Precautionary Principle (as the NZ Government seems determined to do) and assume that Peak Oil will not occur for decades, the consequences could be unimaginably bad. Let us suppose that the peak occurs in 2008, a year that many very reputable scientists believe this is extremely likely. The Government would attribute oil supplies not meeting demand to other factors, such as terrorism, and continue to ignore the issue. Discovering some time later, say in 2009, that we had indeed peaked, we would find ourselves on a slippery slope and just as badly caught out as the women I mentioned at the start, with about as much hope of salvation. We would find ourselves in the situation of receiving declining deliveries of oil at ever higher prices, economic factors that would surely derail the economy, if not our entire society. And by the same token, if those oil geologists and energy analysts who plumb for peak in 2006 are correct, the crisis is even closer and the government even less prepared. Regrettably, that seems to best describe the path the government of Helen Clark has chosen for New Zealand ?ignore the evidence, take no precautions and maintain a state of total unpreparedness. * all the evidence points to global warming, just like oil supply, rapidly reaching the point of no return Kevin Moore Feb 2005 Survivors know the truth about energy, food and the environment, and are preparing for the meltdown. Perishers don't know the truth, or don't care, and still believe the system will provide, even as it starts to collapse. Date: Wed, 8 Oct 2008 13:08:13 +1300To: kevin_enviro at hotmail.comFrom: baddock at earthlight.co.nzSubject: RE: [LE] NZ economic analysis Again, I find your use of much terminology is so loose as to rob it of real meaning Kevin. Nothing that transpired in 2005 came close to the scale of collapse you were indicating during 2005. Personally I require rather more precision in sources or analysis in order for me to regard them as reliable or useful. If you don't, that's fine, but it may be related to the difficulty you identify in persuading people to your view. Allan The world as we knew it did indeed end for many people around the world in 2005. Most of the carnage was well hidden because the corporate media chose not to report it (of course). Western economies have been surviving by pushing increasing numbers of poor people straight off the cliff, particulalry those living in Africa, Asia and the Caribbean etc. The oil supply did indeed peak over 2005-6, just as predicted. We are now trudging along the bumpy plateau, with all sorts of scams and energy squandering schemes propping things up in the short term, whilst making all our problems much worse in the long term. Such has been the desperation to keep up the appearance of normality since 2005. The extraction data for 2008 will prove very interesting reading, since Russia seems to have joined the long list of nations falling off the extraction cliff. The fact that there has been a greater delay in the arrival of the crisis for NZ than some of us thought should be seen as a great blessing, an opportunity to heed the warnings and prepare. However, virtually no preparatiosn have been made, other than by a handful of 'awake' people. The powers that be have used the past three years to create even more dysfunction than existed in 2005 and, naturally enough, the bulk of the population has followed that lead. NZ imports 80% of its oil, and I stand by the statement that if the oil tankers stopped arriving (for whatever reason) the NZ economy would be in a tailspin in a week and grind to a near standstill in a month. Geochemistry and geophysics will prevail, whatever anyone might say or think to the contrary. If the meltdown does not come as quickly as some of us thought, we should be extremely thankful. I suspect we will discover over the next six months how useful wishful thinking or human ingenuity are in a world of declining fossil energy supply. Regards Kevin Survivors know the truth about energy, food and the environment, and are preparing for the meltdown. Perishers don't know the truth, or don't care, and still believe the system will provide, even as it starts to collapse. Date: Wed, 8 Oct 2008 10:33:32 +1300To: kevin_enviro at hotmail.comFrom: baddock at earthlight.co.nzSubject: Re: [LE] NZ economic analysis.ExternalClass blockquote, .ExternalClass dl, .ExternalClass ul, .ExternalClass ol, .ExternalClass li{padding-top:0;padding-bottom:0;} The difficulty Kevin, is that very often people making categorical predictions of things ending are simply discredited when those things don't come to pass. In our first conversation in 2005 you said the oil-based world would collapse by year's end 2005. Before christmas was, I think, your term. Your current predictions are a little less specific, but remain dotted with quite categorical assertions of specific timeframes, such as current food production ceasing a month after oil imports stop, and our agriculture system caving in within the next decade. You assert that is 100% guaranteed. That is over-stating things beyond realistic projection. Your flawed history of prediction and wider observation makes the guarantee you assert incredible, in the true sense of the word. The predictions of the food production system ending within a month appears to take no account of any responsive action - and experience and observation shows that people will find ways to prop up ailing systems for remarkably long times. Tsunamis cause cataclysmic collapses. Human events seldom do. Anybody who has tried to actively eliminate a widespread practice will attest to the difficulties and prolonged effort required - let alone ceasing a practice that the majority of the population are trying to preserve. The alternatives people turn to in order to prop up the system may not be sustainable or attractive, but I think we can rest assured people will find ways to keep their part of the system staggering along for quite some time. So while I, and I'm confident most people on this discussion list, are very conscious of the levels of oil dependency, the scientific evidence, and long term unsustainability of many current practices, I'm inclined to agree with Aaron that understanding of the way ahead is better served by contained specific analysis than by cataclysmic assertions. Allan Aaron, I think it woiuld be very useful if you did not describe realistic projections based on the best scientific evidence as 'doomsaying'. Dismissing reality as doomsaying is not a particulalry productive strategy for dealing with it. The current [industrial] food production system will cease to exist one month after oil tankers stop coming to NZ to deliver cheap oil, or one year after the price of oil passes an indeterminable threshold beyond which its use beomes unfeasoble. Fertilisers topdressing, movement of farm animals, collection of milk, ploughing oif fields, collection and transport of produce are all totally dependent on cheap oil and the entire system will cave on at some stage over the next decade, if not the next 5 years. Tthat is 100$ guaranteed. And NZs industrialised agricultural system would collapse in one month if there were major conflagration in the Middle East. Irrespective of that, NZ can no longer obtain cheap phosphorus from Christmas Island or Nauru becasue the is none left there -we more or less completely mined them out in the twentieth century. Even Florida rock is on its last legs. The last remaining substantial reserves of phosphate are in Morroco -and we know what they think of western government constantly killing Muslims in Iraq, Afghanistan etc. I am not saying it will happen overnight, but at some stage in the near future we will have no phophorus imports, no urea, no potash and agricultural production will begin to plumet. But long before that happens, the cost of transport to overseas markets will cripple exports. Last season exports were severely hit by drought. Right now farmers are suffering (well actually it the livestock that is suffering) from attrociusly wet ground. We are headed into totally uncharted territory with respect to climate but would be very wise to expect and plan for ever greater extremes of drought and inundation -unlike offical bodies that perpetually tells us of the wonderful 'benefits' of global warming. As long as people continue to think in terms of money instead of in terms of energy, rapidly depleting resources and stable geochemistry we will make no progress whatsoever towards sustainability or even towards a realsitic economy for the next decade. Our real wealth is entirely generated by energy supplies and natural resources, not by money. For some inexplicable reason many people continue to identify money and its manipulation as the pathway to wealth. The moeny system is simply used as a mechanism for extracting wealth -effectively looting the planet. The reality is, there is very little left to loot. That, in a nutshell, is why we are going down right now. We have to go down. Going down is unavoidable. What we need to try to make the going down as 'comfortable' as possible. May I suggest you read everything on Energy Bulletin for a month or two and become totaly familiar with peak oil, peak phosphorus, peak water, peak climate etc. Regards Kevin Survivors know the truth about energy, food and the environment, and are preparing for the meltdown. Perishers don't know the truth, or don't care, and still believe the system will provide, even as it starts to collapse. From: utr at raglan.net.nzTo: le-members at list.wji.comDate: Tue, 7 Oct 2008 21:52:47 +1300Subject: Re: [LE] NZ economic analysis Lowell, thanks for your comments, that's actually the sort of analysis I was looking for - and much more specific than generalised doom-saying. I would probably add that another difference between NZ and the US is that we still have a genuine productive sector in the form of food production which is currently even more lucrative during a world wide food shortage. This will slow the rate of economic decline, but by how much I don't really know. Raf, thanks for those links. Kevin, I think you're right that current events are related to those events of the past but I think it goes back further than that, here's an article I just read which I thought tied it all together nicely http://realitysandwich.com/money_and_crisis_civilization . It ends with a positive view of what can be done with the vaccuum created by the implosion of the money system, which I think will be of interest to everyone on this list. I would emphasise that the positive vision of the future is FAR more energising (and therefore helpful) to readers than mere doom-saying. Aaron ----- Original Message ----- From: Lowell Manning To: Kevin Moore ; Stephnie deRuyter Cc: Aaron ; le-members at list.wji.com Sent: Sunday, October 05, 2008 8:37 PM Subject: Re: [LE] NZ economic analysis Hi Kevin, As at end March the NZ total debt was about $413 billion made up of $273b domestic Credit and $140b in accumulated current account deficits. That indeed makes NZ in terms of GDP ($178b) one of the most indebted countries in the developed world. Every year for each of the past 30 years or more we have borrowed the entire nominal increase in GDP for that year in the form of the current account deficit. There is little danger of implosion in New Zealand though, but just like other countries especially US, the deficits and the borrowing mean an ongoing shift , in the form of unearned (interest) income, of the nation's wealth to the holders of bank deposits. In aggregate those in the productive economy are becoming poorer while those in the investment sector are becoming richer, literally by about NZ$30b in the year ended March 2008. The current turmoil in the financial sector in NZ is just a blip in a much broader process. New Zealand is, despite the debt loading, has nowhere near the problems faced in the US that have been caused by rampant greed and fraud on a massive scale. Instead, the foreseeable future here is an ongoing perceptible decline in the real living standards of ordinary people. Within the orthodox financial system the transfer of wealth from poor to rich can be corrected ONLY by massive taxation of the investment sector to create an equal and opposite monetary flow from the investment sector to the productive sector, say roughly $25billion in the year ended March 2008 Far and away the best solution is simply to remove interest on deposits. The key to reform and economic survival is to provide a mechanism where inflation in the investment sector and inflation in the productive sector are matched. Removing interest on deposits through statutory intervention will do that instantly. Otherwise, over time we will all become economic slaves in our own land. Cheers, Lowell On 5/10/2008, at 7:47 PM, Kevin Moore wrote: Quick summary: The last I read NZ debt level is higher per capita that the US. NZ imports a greater % oif its oil that the US. NZ government budgets on oil at around $70 a barrel whether it is $90 or $140 a barrel.Trade imbalance varies a lot throughout the year but on average NZ spends approximate 1 billion a month more than it earns. Most farmers culled a lot of stock due to last summer's drought, so are entering thr spring with very low stock numbers. Implosion coming soon. Helen and company have done a great job in sabotaging the economy. but don't expect anything different from any of the others. K Survivors know the truth about energy, food and the environment, and are preparing for the meltdown. Perishers don't know the truth, or don't care, and still believe the system will provide, even as it starts to collapse. From: utr at raglan.net.nzTo: le-members at list.wji.comDate: Sun, 5 Oct 2008 14:44:23 +1300Subject: [LE] NZ economic analysis It's great to read the excellent economic analysis that comes out of the US alternative media but I'm wondering if anyone knows of someone in New Zealand who is able to discuss the state of the New Zealand economy in the same way that Mike Whitney on Information Clearing House does (for instance) . The recent events in the US financial markets and the their impact on the average citizen comes as no surprise since US writers have done such an excellent job in outlining the problems over there. It's frustrating though that I'm actually less informed about my own country and don't know, for instance, how much debt local banks are carrying, how much of that is in sub prime mortgages and just how close to a meltdown we actually are. I know this is not strictly on topic (although the meltdown of the national economy will probably provide fertile ground for LE) but I thought someone around here might be able to help me out Aaron _______________________________________________ LE-Members mailing list LE-Members at wji.com http://list.wji.com/mailman/listinfo/le-members _______________________________________________LE-Members mailing listLE-Members at wji.comhttp://list.wji.com/mailman/listinfo/le-members _________________________________________________________________ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://list.wji.com/pipermail/le-members/attachments/20081007/54eb81d1/attachment-0001.html From baddock at earthlight.co.nz Tue Oct 7 22:32:02 2008 From: baddock at earthlight.co.nz (Al Baddock) Date: Wed, 8 Oct 2008 15:32:02 +1300 Subject: [LE] NZ economic analysis Message-ID: Again, I find your use of much terminology is so loose as to rob it of real meaning Kevin. Nothing that transpired in 2005 came close to the scale of collapse you were indicating during 2005. Personally I require rather more precision in sources or analysis in order for me to regard them as reliable or useful. If you don't, that's fine, but it may be related to the difficulty you identify in persuading people to your view. Allan >The world as we knew it did indeed end for many people around the >world in 2005. Most of the carnage was well hidden because the >corporate media chose not to report it (of course). Western >economies have been surviving by pushing increasing numbers of poor >people straight off the cliff, particulalry those living in Africa, >Asia and the Caribbean etc. > >The oil supply did indeed peak over 2005-6, just as predicted. We >are now trudging along the bumpy plateau, with all sorts of scams >and energy squandering schemes propping things up in the short >term, whilst making all our problems much worse in the long term. >Such has been the desperation to keep up the appearance of normality >since 2005. > >The extraction data for 2008 will prove very interesting reading, >since Russia seems to have joined the long list of nations falling >off the extraction cliff. > >The fact that there has been a greater delay in the arrival of the >crisis for NZ than some of us thought should be seen as a great >blessing, an opportunity to heed the warnings and prepare. However, >virtually no preparatiosn have been made, other than by a handful of >'awake' people. The powers that be have used the past three years to >create even more dysfunction than existed in 2005 and, naturally >enough, the bulk of the population has followed that lead. > >NZ imports 80% of its oil, and I stand by the statement that if the >oil tankers stopped arriving (for whatever reason) the NZ economy >would be in a tailspin in a week and grind to a near standstill in a >month. > >Geochemistry and geophysics will prevail, whatever anyone might say >or think to the contrary. If the meltdown does not come as quickly >as some of us thought, we should be extremely thankful. > >I suspect we will discover over the next six months how useful >wishful thinking or human ingenuity are in a world of declining >fossil energy supply. > >Regards > >Kevin > >Survivors know the truth about energy, food and the environment, and >are preparing for the meltdown. >Perishers don't know the truth, or don't care, and still believe the >system will provide, even as it starts to collapse. > > > >Date: Wed, 8 Oct 2008 10:33:32 +1300 >To: kevin_enviro at hotmail.com >From: baddock at earthlight.co.nz >Subject: Re: [LE] NZ economic analysis > >.ExternalClass blockquote, .ExternalClass dl, .ExternalClass ul, >.ExternalClass ol, .ExternalClass li{padding-top:0;padding-bottom:0;} >The difficulty Kevin, is that very often people making categorical >predictions of things ending are simply discredited when those >things don't come to pass. >In our first conversation in 2005 you said the oil-based world would >collapse by year's end 2005. Before christmas was, I think, your >term. > >Your current predictions are a little less specific, but remain >dotted with quite categorical assertions of specific timeframes, >such as current food production ceasing a month after oil imports >stop, and our agriculture system caving in within the next decade. >You assert that is 100% guaranteed. > >That is over-stating things beyond realistic projection. Your flawed >history of prediction and wider observation makes the guarantee you >assert incredible, in the true sense of the word. The predictions of >the food production system ending within a month appears to take no >account of any responsive action - and experience and observation >shows that people will find ways to prop up ailing systems for >remarkably long times. Tsunamis cause cataclysmic collapses. Human >events seldom do. Anybody who has tried to actively eliminate a >widespread practice will attest to the difficulties and prolonged >effort required - let alone ceasing a practice that the majority of >the population are trying to preserve. The alternatives people turn >to in order to prop up the system may not be sustainable or >attractive, but I think we can rest assured people will find ways to >keep their part of the system staggering along for quite some time. > >So while I, and I'm confident most people on this discussion list, >are very conscious of the levels of oil dependency, the scientific >evidence, and long term unsustainability of many current practices, >I'm inclined to agree with Aaron that understanding of the way >ahead is better served by contained specific analysis than by >cataclysmic assertions. >Allan > >Aaron, > >I think it woiuld be very useful if you did not describe realistic >projections based on the best scientific evidence as 'doomsaying'. > >Dismissing reality as doomsaying is not a particulalry >productive strategy for dealing with it. > >The current [industrial] food production system will cease to exist >one month after oil tankers stop coming to NZ to deliver cheap oil, >or one year after the price of oil passes an indeterminable >threshold beyond which its use beomes unfeasoble. Fertilisers >topdressing, movement of farm animals, collection of milk, ploughing >oif fields, collection and transport of produce are all totally >dependent on cheap oil and the entire system will cave on at some >stage over the next decade, if not the next 5 years. Tthat is 100$ >guaranteed. And NZs industrialised agricultural system would >collapse in one month if there were major conflagration in the >Middle East. > >Irrespective of that, NZ can no longer obtain cheap phosphorus from >Christmas Island or Nauru becasue the is none left there -we more >or less completely mined them out in the twentieth century. Even >Florida rock is on its last legs. The last remaining substantial >reserves of phosphate are in Morroco -and we know what they think >of western government constantly killing Muslims in Iraq, >Afghanistan etc. > >I am not saying it will happen overnight, but at some stage in the >near future we will have no phophorus imports, no urea, no >potash and agricultural production will begin to plumet. But long >before that happens, the cost of transport to overseas markets will >cripple exports. > >Last season exports were severely hit by drought. Right now farmers >are suffering (well actually it the livestock that is suffering) >from attrociusly wet ground. We are headed into totally uncharted >territory with respect to climate but would be very wise to expect >and plan for ever greater extremes of drought and inundation >-unlike offical bodies that perpetually tells us of the wonderful >'benefits' of global warming. > >As long as people continue to think in terms of money instead of in >terms of energy, rapidly depleting resources and stable geochemistry > we will make no progress whatsoever towards sustainability or even >towards a realsitic economy for the next decade. > > >Our real wealth is entirely generated by energy supplies and natural >resources, not by money. For some inexplicable reason many people >continue to identify money and its manipulation as the pathway to >wealth. The moeny system is simply used as a mechanism for >extracting wealth -effectively looting the planet. The reality is, >there is very little left to loot. That, in a nutshell, is why we >are going down right now. We have to go down. Going down is >unavoidable. What we need to try to make the going down as >'comfortable' as possible. > > > >May I suggest you read everything on Energy Bulletin for a month or >two and become totaly familiar with peak oil, peak phosphorus, peak >water, peak climate etc. > >Regards > >Kevin > > > > > >Survivors know the truth about energy, food and the environment, and >are preparing for the meltdown. > >Perishers don't know the truth, or don't care, and still believe the >system will provide, even as it starts to collapse. > > > > >From: utr at raglan.net.nz >To: le-members at list.wji.com >Date: Tue, 7 Oct 2008 21:52:47 +1300 >Subject: Re: [LE] NZ economic analysis > >Lowell, > > > >thanks for your comments, that's actually the sort of analysis I was >looking for - and much more specific than generalised doom-saying. > > > >I would probably add that another difference between NZ and the US >is that we still have a genuine productive sector in the form of >food production which is currently even more lucrative during a >world wide food shortage. This will slow the rate of economic >decline, but by how much I don't really know. > > > >Raf, thanks for those links. > > > >Kevin, I think you're right that current events are related to those >events of the past but I think it goes back further than that, >here's an article I just read which I thought tied it all together >nicely >http://realitysandwich.com/money_and_crisis_civilization . >It ends with a positive view of what can be done with the vaccuum >created by the implosion of the money system, which I think will be >of interest to everyone on this list. I would emphasise that the >positive vision of the future is FAR more energising (and therefore >helpful) to readers than mere doom-saying. > > > >Aaron > > > > > > > > > >----- Original Message ----- > >From: Lowell Manning > >To: Kevin Moore ; >Stephnie deRuyter > >Cc: Aaron ; >le-members at list.wji.com > >Sent: Sunday, October 05, 2008 8:37 PM > >Subject: Re: [LE] NZ economic analysis > > >Hi Kevin, > > >As at end March the NZ total debt was about $413 billion made up of >$273b domestic Credit and $140b in accumulated current account >deficits. > > >That indeed makes NZ in terms of GDP ($178b) one of the most >indebted countries in the developed world. > > >Every year for each of the past 30 years or more we have borrowed >the entire nominal increase in GDP for that year in the form of the >current account deficit. > > >There is little danger of implosion in New Zealand though, but just >like other countries especially US, the deficits and the borrowing >mean an ongoing shift , in the form of unearned (interest) income, >of the nation's wealth to the holders of bank deposits. > > >In aggregate those in the productive economy are becoming poorer >while those in the investment sector are becoming richer, literally >by about NZ$30b in the year ended March 2008. > > >The current turmoil in the financial sector in NZ is just a blip in >a much broader process. New Zealand is, despite the debt loading, >has nowhere near the problems faced in the US that have been >caused by rampant greed and fraud on a massive scale. > > >Instead, the foreseeable future here is an ongoing perceptible >decline in the real living standards of ordinary people. > > >Within the orthodox financial system the transfer of wealth from >poor to rich can be corrected ONLY by massive taxation of the >investment sector to create an equal and opposite monetary flow from >the investment sector to the productive sector, say roughly >$25billion in the year ended March 2008 > > >Far and away the best solution is simply to remove interest on deposits. > > >The key to reform and economic survival is to provide a mechanism >where inflation in the investment sector and inflation in the >productive sector are matched. Removing interest on deposits through >statutory intervention will do that instantly. > > >Otherwise, over time we will all become economic slaves in our own land. > > >Cheers, > > >Lowell > > > >On 5/10/2008, at 7:47 PM, Kevin Moore wrote: > > >Quick summary: > >The last I read NZ debt level is higher per capita that the US. > >NZ imports a greater % oif its oil that the US. NZ government >budgets on oil at around $70 a barrel whether it is $90 or $140 a >barrel. > >Trade imbalance varies a lot throughout the year but on average NZ >spends approximate 1 billion a month more than it earns. > >Most farmers culled a lot of stock due to last summer's drought, so >are entering thr spring with very low stock numbers. > >Implosion coming soon. > >Helen and company have done a great job in sabotaging the economy. >but don't expect anything different from any of the others. > >K > >Survivors know the truth about energy, food and the environment, and >are preparing for the meltdown. > >Perishers don't know the truth, or don't care, and still believe the >system will provide, even as it starts to collapse. > > > > >From: utr at raglan.net.nz >To: le-members at list.wji.com >Date: Sun, 5 Oct 2008 14:44:23 +1300 >Subject: [LE] NZ economic analysis > >It's great to read the excellent economic analysis that comes out of >the US alternative media but I'm wondering if anyone knows of >someone in New Zealand who is able to discuss the state of the New >Zealand economy in the same way that Mike Whitney on Information >Clearing House does (for instance) . > > > >The recent events in the US financial markets and the their impact >on the average citizen comes as no surprise since US writers have >done such an excellent job in outlining the problems over there. >It's frustrating though that I'm actually less informed about my own >country and don't know, for instance, how much debt local banks are >carrying, how much of that is in sub prime mortgages and just how >close to a meltdown we actually are. > > > >I know this is not strictly on topic (although the meltdown of the >national economy will probably provide fertile ground for LE) but I >thought someone around here might be able to help me out > > > >Aaron > > > > > >_______________________________________________ > >LE-Members mailing list > >LE-Members at wji.com > >http://list.wji.com/mailman/listinfo/le-members > > > > > > > >_______________________________________________ >LE-Members mailing list >LE-Members at wji.com >http://list.wji.com/mailman/listinfo/le-members > > > > ><> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://list.wji.com/pipermail/le-members/attachments/20081007/c1ab0aac/attachment-0001.html From baddock at earthlight.co.nz Tue Oct 7 23:06:40 2008 From: baddock at earthlight.co.nz (Al Baddock) Date: Wed, 8 Oct 2008 16:06:40 +1300 Subject: [LE] NZ economic analysis In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: In the absence of reliable information, a prudent approach is to refrain from prediction. That doesn't preclude precaution. In fact, making predictions in the absence of reliable information is the antithesis of a precautionary approach. A precautionary approach in such circumstances entails monitoring the situation closely, but taking care to frame any predictions or advice in full recognition of the surrounding uncertainty. I think it is the over-stating of certainty and under-acknowledgement of uncertainty that leads to suggestions of doom-saying. I think balancing that is only difficult; not impossible. However, it's something most members of this List seem to master reasonably well, so I suggest it's probably not a discussion to pursue any further here. Good luck Allan At 2:06 AM +0000 8/10/08, Kevin Moore wrote: >Bearing in mind that the oil reserves of Saudi Arabia are a state >secret and no independent audits >have been permitted by the Saudi government, and bearing in the >extent of hurricane damage is unpredicatable, and bearing in mind >which particular oil pipeline will be blown up next week cannot be >prediced, the kind of precision you seem to require is simply not >possible, Allan. > >Under such circumstances it is clearly prudent to adopt the >precautionary principle*, on the basis that early preparation does >no harm (and indeed it provides fairly immendiate benefits in most >situations), whereas late or no preparation results in catastrophe. > >*Published as hard copy in STF and on oilcrash and other websites in >2005. Note also that PP was a chapter heading in Burn Baby Burn, >2001. > >Our problem is not one of information, but the manipulation of >society by money lenders etc. and the role of gatekeepers, who block >information that does not suit their [personal gain] agendas. All >that plus the refusal of society in general to accept crucial >information or to act upon it. > >I don't mind difficult tasks. It's the tasks that are impossible I give up on. > >Regards > >Kevin > From kevin_enviro at hotmail.com Wed Oct 8 01:25:24 2008 From: kevin_enviro at hotmail.com (Kevin Moore) Date: Wed, 8 Oct 2008 05:25:24 +0000 Subject: [LE] NZ economic analysis In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Probably the only terminology that is worth discussing at this late stage in the game is ASPO founder Colin Campbell's description peak oil as 'The greatest discontinuity in all of human history'. If members of this group understand what 'discontinuity' means and what it implies, we will have made some progress. Kevin Survivors know the truth about energy, food and the environment, and are preparing for the meltdown. Perishers don't know the truth, or don't care, and still believe the system will provide, even as it starts to collapse. Date: Wed, 8 Oct 2008 15:32:02 +1300To: le-members at list.wji.comFrom: baddock at earthlight.co.nzSubject: Re: [LE] NZ economic analysis Again, I find your use of much terminology is so loose as to rob it of real meaning Kevin. Nothing that transpired in 2005 came close to the scale of collapse you were indicating during 2005. Personally I require rather more precision in sources or analysis in order for me to regard them as reliable or useful. If you don't, that's fine, but it may be related to the difficulty you identify in persuading people to your view. Allan The world as we knew it did indeed end for many people around the world in 2005. Most of the carnage was well hidden because the corporate media chose not to report it (of course). Western economies have been surviving by pushing increasing numbers of poor people straight off the cliff, particulalry those living in Africa, Asia and the Caribbean etc. The oil supply did indeed peak over 2005-6, just as predicted. We are now trudging along the bumpy plateau, with all sorts of scams and energy squandering schemes propping things up in the short term, whilst making all our problems much worse in the long term. Such has been the desperation to keep up the appearance of normality since 2005. The extraction data for 2008 will prove very interesting reading, since Russia seems to have joined the long list of nations falling off the extraction cliff. The fact that there has been a greater delay in the arrival of the crisis for NZ than some of us thought should be seen as a great blessing, an opportunity to heed the warnings and prepare. However, virtually no preparatiosn have been made, other than by a handful of 'awake' people. The powers that be have used the past three years to create even more dysfunction than existed in 2005 and, naturally enough, the bulk of the population has followed that lead. NZ imports 80% of its oil, and I stand by the statement that if the oil tankers stopped arriving (for whatever reason) the NZ economy would be in a tailspin in a week and grind to a near standstill in a month. Geochemistry and geophysics will prevail, whatever anyone might say or think to the contrary. If the meltdown does not come as quickly as some of us thought, we should be extremely thankful. I suspect we will discover over the next six months how useful wishful thinking or human ingenuity are in a world of declining fossil energy supply. Regards Kevin Survivors know the truth about energy, food and the environment, and are preparing for the meltdown. Perishers don't know the truth, or don't care, and still believe the system will provide, even as it starts to collapse. Date: Wed, 8 Oct 2008 10:33:32 +1300To: kevin_enviro at hotmail.comFrom: baddock at earthlight.co.nzSubject: Re: [LE] NZ economic analysis.ExternalClass blockquote, .ExternalClass dl, .ExternalClass ul, .ExternalClass ol, .ExternalClass li{padding-top:0;padding-bottom:0;} The difficulty Kevin, is that very often people making categorical predictions of things ending are simply discredited when those things don't come to pass. In our first conversation in 2005 you said the oil-based world would collapse by year's end 2005. Before christmas was, I think, your term. Your current predictions are a little less specific, but remain dotted with quite categorical assertions of specific timeframes, such as current food production ceasing a month after oil imports stop, and our agriculture system caving in within the next decade. You assert that is 100% guaranteed. That is over-stating things beyond realistic projection. Your flawed history of prediction and wider observation makes the guarantee you assert incredible, in the true sense of the word. The predictions of the food production system ending within a month appears to take no account of any responsive action - and experience and observation shows that people will find ways to prop up ailing systems for remarkably long times. Tsunamis cause cataclysmic collapses. Human events seldom do. Anybody who has tried to actively eliminate a widespread practice will attest to the difficulties and prolonged effort required - let alone ceasing a practice that the majority of the population are trying to preserve. The alternatives people turn to in order to prop up the system may not be sustainable or attractive, but I think we can rest assured people will find ways to keep their part of the system staggering along for quite some time. So while I, and I'm confident most people on this discussion list, are very conscious of the levels of oil dependency, the scientific evidence, and long term unsustainability of many current practices, I'm inclined to agree with Aaron that understanding of the way ahead is better served by contained specific analysis than by cataclysmic assertions. Allan Aaron, I think it woiuld be very useful if you did not describe realistic projections based on the best scientific evidence as 'doomsaying'. Dismissing reality as doomsaying is not a particulalry productive strategy for dealing with it. The current [industrial] food production system will cease to exist one month after oil tankers stop coming to NZ to deliver cheap oil, or one year after the price of oil passes an indeterminable threshold beyond which its use beomes unfeasoble. Fertilisers topdressing, movement of farm animals, collection of milk, ploughing oif fields, collection and transport of produce are all totally dependent on cheap oil and the entire system will cave on at some stage over the next decade, if not the next 5 years. Tthat is 100$ guaranteed. And NZs industrialised agricultural system would collapse in one month if there were major conflagration in the Middle East. Irrespective of that, NZ can no longer obtain cheap phosphorus from Christmas Island or Nauru becasue the is none left there -we more or less completely mined them out in the twentieth century. Even Florida rock is on its last legs. The last remaining substantial reserves of phosphate are in Morroco -and we know what they think of western government constantly killing Muslims in Iraq, Afghanistan etc. I am not saying it will happen overnight, but at some stage in the near future we will have no phophorus imports, no urea, no potash and agricultural production will begin to plumet. But long before that happens, the cost of transport to overseas markets will cripple exports. Last season exports were severely hit by drought. Right now farmers are suffering (well actually it the livestock that is suffering) from attrociusly wet ground. We are headed into totally uncharted territory with respect to climate but would be very wise to expect and plan for ever greater extremes of drought and inundation -unlike offical bodies that perpetually tells us of the wonderful 'benefits' of global warming. As long as people continue to think in terms of money instead of in terms of energy, rapidly depleting resources and stable geochemistry we will make no progress whatsoever towards sustainability or even towards a realsitic economy for the next decade. Our real wealth is entirely generated by energy supplies and natural resources, not by money. For some inexplicable reason many people continue to identify money and its manipulation as the pathway to wealth. The moeny system is simply used as a mechanism for extracting wealth -effectively looting the planet. The reality is, there is very little left to loot. That, in a nutshell, is why we are going down right now. We have to go down. Going down is unavoidable. What we need to try to make the going down as 'comfortable' as possible. May I suggest you read everything on Energy Bulletin for a month or two and become totaly familiar with peak oil, peak phosphorus, peak water, peak climate etc. Regards Kevin Survivors know the truth about energy, food and the environment, and are preparing for the meltdown. Perishers don't know the truth, or don't care, and still believe the system will provide, even as it starts to collapse. From: utr at raglan.net.nzTo: le-members at list.wji.comDate: Tue, 7 Oct 2008 21:52:47 +1300Subject: Re: [LE] NZ economic analysis Lowell, thanks for your comments, that's actually the sort of analysis I was looking for - and much more specific than generalised doom-saying. I would probably add that another difference between NZ and the US is that we still have a genuine productive sector in the form of food production which is currently even more lucrative during a world wide food shortage. This will slow the rate of economic decline, but by how much I don't really know. Raf, thanks for those links. Kevin, I think you're right that current events are related to those events of the past but I think it goes back further than that, here's an article I just read which I thought tied it all together nicely http://realitysandwich.com/money_and_crisis_civilization . It ends with a positive view of what can be done with the vaccuum created by the implosion of the money system, which I think will be of interest to everyone on this list. I would emphasise that the positive vision of the future is FAR more energising (and therefore helpful) to readers than mere doom-saying. Aaron ----- Original Message ----- From: Lowell Manning To: Kevin Moore ; Stephnie deRuyter Cc: Aaron ; le-members at list.wji.com Sent: Sunday, October 05, 2008 8:37 PM Subject: Re: [LE] NZ economic analysis Hi Kevin, As at end March the NZ total debt was about $413 billion made up of $273b domestic Credit and $140b in accumulated current account deficits. That indeed makes NZ in terms of GDP ($178b) one of the most indebted countries in the developed world. Every year for each of the past 30 years or more we have borrowed the entire nominal increase in GDP for that year in the form of the current account deficit. There is little danger of implosion in New Zealand though, but just like other countries especially US, the deficits and the borrowing mean an ongoing shift , in the form of unearned (interest) income, of the nation's wealth to the holders of bank deposits. In aggregate those in the productive economy are becoming poorer while those in the investment sector are becoming richer, literally by about NZ$30b in the year ended March 2008. The current turmoil in the financial sector in NZ is just a blip in a much broader process. New Zealand is, despite the debt loading, has nowhere near the problems faced in the US that have been caused by rampant greed and fraud on a massive scale. Instead, the foreseeable future here is an ongoing perceptible decline in the real living standards of ordinary people. Within the orthodox financial system the transfer of wealth from poor to rich can be corrected ONLY by massive taxation of the investment sector to create an equal and opposite monetary flow from the investment sector to the productive sector, say roughly $25billion in the year ended March 2008 Far and away the best solution is simply to remove interest on deposits. The key to reform and economic survival is to provide a mechanism where inflation in the investment sector and inflation in the productive sector are matched. Removing interest on deposits through statutory intervention will do that instantly. Otherwise, over time we will all become economic slaves in our own land. Cheers, Lowell On 5/10/2008, at 7:47 PM, Kevin Moore wrote: Quick summary: The last I read NZ debt level is higher per capita that the US. NZ imports a greater % oif its oil that the US. NZ government budgets on oil at around $70 a barrel whether it is $90 or $140 a barrel.Trade imbalance varies a lot throughout the year but on average NZ spends approximate 1 billion a month more than it earns. Most farmers culled a lot of stock due to last summer's drought, so are entering thr spring with very low stock numbers. Implosion coming soon. Helen and company have done a great job in sabotaging the economy. but don't expect anything different from any of the others. K Survivors know the truth about energy, food and the environment, and are preparing for the meltdown. Perishers don't know the truth, or don't care, and still believe the system will provide, even as it starts to collapse. From: utr at raglan.net.nzTo: le-members at list.wji.comDate: Sun, 5 Oct 2008 14:44:23 +1300Subject: [LE] NZ economic analysis It's great to read the excellent economic analysis that comes out of the US alternative media but I'm wondering if anyone knows of someone in New Zealand who is able to discuss the state of the New Zealand economy in the same way that Mike Whitney on Information Clearing House does (for instance) . The recent events in the US financial markets and the their impact on the average citizen comes as no surprise since US writers have done such an excellent job in outlining the problems over there. It's frustrating though that I'm actually less informed about my own country and don't know, for instance, how much debt local banks are carrying, how much of that is in sub prime mortgages and just how close to a meltdown we actually are. I know this is not strictly on topic (although the meltdown of the national economy will probably provide fertile ground for LE) but I thought someone around here might be able to help me out Aaron _______________________________________________ LE-Members mailing list LE-Members at wji.com http://list.wji.com/mailman/listinfo/le-members _______________________________________________LE-Members mailing listLE-Members at wji.comhttp://list.wji.com/mailman/listinfo/le-members _________________________________________________________________ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://list.wji.com/pipermail/le-members/attachments/20081008/80c85e24/attachment-0001.html From stuartbramhall at yahoo.co.nz Wed Oct 8 03:13:16 2008 From: stuartbramhall at yahoo.co.nz (Stuart Bramhall) Date: Wed, 8 Oct 2008 00:13:16 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [LE] NZ economic analysis In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <218905.12162.qm@web36706.mail.mud.yahoo.com> In my view the most productive use of this list is for people to offer access to research, data and expert opinion on how to interpret the research and data.? I do not find name calling - such as accusing someone of doomsaying - at all helpful and I find this quite objectionable. --- On Wed, 8/10/08, Kevin Moore wrote: From: Kevin Moore Subject: Re: [LE] NZ economic analysis To: "Al Baddock" , "le-members at list.wji.com" Received: Wednesday, 8 October, 2008, 6:25 PM #yiv1882605092 .hmmessage P { margin:0px;padding:0px;} #yiv1882605092 { FONT-SIZE:10pt;FONT-FAMILY:Tahoma;} Probably the only terminology that is worth discussing?at this late stage in the game is ASPO founder Colin Campbell's description peak oil as 'The greatest discontinuity in all of human history'. ? If members of this group?understand what?'discontinuity' means and what it implies, we will have made some progress. Kevin Survivors know the truth about energy, food and the environment, and are preparing for the meltdown.? Perishers don't know the truth,?or don't care, and still believe the system will provide, even as it starts to collapse. Date: Wed, 8 Oct 2008 15:32:02 +1300 To: le-members at list.wji.com From: baddock at earthlight.co.nz Subject: Re: [LE] NZ economic analysis #yiv1882605092 .ExternalClass blockquote, #yiv1882605092 .ExternalClass dl, #yiv1882605092 .ExternalClass ul, #yiv1882605092 .ExternalClass ol, #yiv1882605092 .ExternalClass li {padding-top:0;padding-bottom:0;} Again, I find your use of much terminology is so loose as to rob it of real meaning Kevin. Nothing that transpired in 2005 came close to the scale of collapse you were indicating during 2005. Personally I require rather more precision in sources or analysis in order for me to regard them as reliable or useful. If you don't, that's fine, but it may be related to the difficulty you identify in persuading people to your view. Allan The world as we knew it did indeed end?for many people around the world in 2005. Most of the carnage was well hidden because?the corporate media chose not to report it (of course). Western economies?have been?surviving by pushing increasing numbers of?poor people?straight off the cliff, particulalry those living in Africa, Asia and the Caribbean etc. ? The oil supply did indeed peak over 2005-6, just as predicted. We are now trudging along the bumpy plateau, with all sorts of scams and energy squandering schemes propping things up in the short term,?whilst making?all our problems much worse in the long term. Such has been the desperation to keep?up the appearance of normality since 2005.? ?? The extraction data for 2008 will prove very interesting reading, since Russia seems?to have joined the long list of nations falling off the extraction cliff. ? The fact that there has been a greater delay in the arrival of the crisis?for NZ than?some of us?thought should be seen as a great blessing, an opportunity to heed the warnings and prepare.??However, virtually no preparatiosn have been made, other than by a handful of 'awake' people. The powers that be have used the past three years to create even??more dysfunction than existed in 2005 and, naturally enough, the bulk of the population has followed that lead. ? NZ imports 80% of its oil, and I stand by the statement that if the oil tankers stopped arriving (for whatever reason) the NZ economy would be in a tailspin in a week and grind to a near standstill in a month. ? Geochemistry and geophysics will prevail, whatever anyone might say or think to the contrary. If the?meltdown does not come as quickly as some of us thought, we should be extremely thankful. ? I suspect we will discover over the next six months how useful wishful thinking or human ingenuity are in a world of declining fossil energy supply.? ? Regards ? Kevin??? Survivors know the truth about energy, food and the environment, and are preparing for the meltdown.? Perishers don't know the truth,?or don't care, and still believe the system will provide, even as it starts to collapse. Date: Wed, 8 Oct 2008 10:33:32 +1300 To: kevin_enviro at hotmail.com From: baddock at earthlight.co.nz Subject: Re: [LE] NZ economic analysis .ExternalClass blockquote, .ExternalClass dl, .ExternalClass ul, .ExternalClass ol, .ExternalClass li{padding-top:0;padding-bottom:0;} The difficulty Kevin, is that very often people making categorical predictions of things ending are simply discredited when those things don't come to pass. In our first conversation in 2005 you said the oil-based world would collapse by year's end 2005. Before christmas was, I think, your term. Your current predictions are a little less specific, but remain dotted with quite categorical assertions of specific timeframes, such as current food production ceasing a month after oil imports stop, and our agriculture system caving in within the next decade. You assert that is 100% guaranteed. That is over-stating things beyond realistic projection. Your flawed history of prediction and wider observation makes the guarantee you assert incredible, in the true sense of the word. The predictions of the food production system ending within a month appears to take no account of any responsive action - and experience and observation shows that people will find ways to prop up ailing systems for remarkably long times. Tsunamis cause cataclysmic collapses. Human events seldom do. Anybody who has tried to actively eliminate a widespread practice will attest to the difficulties and prolonged effort required - let alone ceasing a practice that the majority of the population are trying to preserve. The alternatives people turn to in order to prop up the system may not be sustainable or attractive, but I think we can rest assured people will find ways to keep their part of the system staggering along for quite some time. So while I, and I'm confident most people on this discussion list, are very conscious of the levels of oil dependency, the scientific evidence, and long term unsustainability of many current practices, I'm inclined to agree with Aaron that? understanding of the way ahead is better served by contained specific analysis than by cataclysmic assertions. Allan Aaron, ? I think it woiuld be very useful if you did not describe realistic projections based on the best scientific evidence as 'doomsaying'. ? Dismissing reality as doomsaying is?not a particulalry productive?strategy for dealing with it. ? The current [industrial] food production system will cease to exist one month after oil tankers stop coming to NZ to deliver?cheap oil, or one year after the?price of oil passes an indeterminable threshold beyond which its use beomes unfeasoble. Fertilisers topdressing, movement of farm animals, collection of milk, ploughing oif?fields, collection and transport of produce are all totally dependent on cheap oil and the entire system will cave on at some stage over the next decade, if not the next 5 years. Tthat is 100$ guaranteed. And?NZs industrialised agricultural system would collapse in one month if there were major conflagration in the Middle East. ? Irrespective of that, NZ can no longer obtain cheap phosphorus from Christmas Island or Nauru becasue the is none left there? -we more or less completely mined them out in the twentieth century. Even Florida rock is on its last legs. The last remaining substantial reserves of phosphate are in Morroco? -and we know what they think of western government constantly killing Muslims in Iraq, Afghanistan etc. ? I am not saying it will happen?overnight, but at some stage in the near future we will have no phophorus imports, no urea, no potash?and agricultural production will begin to plumet. But long before that happens, the cost of transport to overseas markets will cripple exports. ? Last season exports were severely hit by drought. Right now farmers are suffering (well actually it the livestock that is suffering) from attrociusly wet ground. We are headed into totally uncharted territory with respect to climate but would be very wise to?expect and plan for ever greater extremes of drought and inundation? -unlike offical bodies that perpetually tells us of the wonderful 'benefits' of global warming. ? As long as people continue to think in terms of money instead of in terms of energy, rapidly depleting resources and stable geochemistry ?we will make no progress whatsoever towards sustainability or even towards a realsitic economy for the next decade. ? Our real?wealth is entirely generated by energy supplies and natural resources, not by money. For some inexplicable?reason many people continue to identify money and its manipulation as the pathway to wealth.?The moeny system is simply used as a mechanism for extracting wealth? -effectively looting the planet. The reality is, there is very little left to loot. That, in a nutshell, is why we are going down right now. We have to go down. Going down is unavoidable. What we need to try to make the going down as 'comfortable' as possible. ? May I suggest you read everything on Energy Bulletin for a month or two and?become totaly familiar with?peak oil, peak phosphorus, peak water, peak climate etc. ? Regards ? Kevin?? ? ? Survivors know the truth about energy, food and the environment, and are preparing for the meltdown.? Perishers don't know the truth,?or don't care, and still believe the system will provide, even as it starts to collapse. From: utr at raglan.net.nz To: le-members at list.wji.com Date: Tue, 7 Oct 2008 21:52:47 +1300 Subject: Re: [LE] NZ economic analysis Lowell,?? ? thanks for your comments, that's actually the sort of analysis I was looking for - and much more specific than generalised doom-saying. ? I would probably add that another difference between?NZ and the US is that we still have a genuine productive sector in the form of food production which is currently even more lucrative during a world wide food shortage. This will slow the rate of economic decline, but by how much I don't really know. ? Raf, thanks for those links. ? Kevin, I think you're right that current events are related to those events of the past but I think it goes back further than that, here's an article I just read which?I thought tied?it all together nicely http://realitysandwich.com/money_and_crisis_civilization?. It ends with a positive view of what can be done with the vaccuum created by the implosion of the money system, which I think will be of interest to everyone on this list. I would emphasise that the positive vision of the future is FAR more energising (and therefore helpful) to readers than mere doom-saying. ? Aaron ? ? ? ? ----- Original Message ----- From: Lowell Manning To: Kevin Moore ; Stephnie deRuyter Cc: Aaron ; le-members at list.wji.com Sent: Sunday, October 05, 2008 8:37 PM Subject: Re: [LE] NZ economic analysis Hi Kevin, As at end March the NZ total debt was about $413 billion made up of? $273b domestic Credit and? $140b in accumulated current account deficits. That indeed makes NZ in terms of? GDP? ($178b) one of the most indebted countries in the developed world. Every year for each of the past 30 years or more we have borrowed the entire nominal increase in GDP for that year in the form of the current account deficit. There is little danger of implosion in New Zealand though, but just like other countries especially US,? the deficits and the borrowing mean an ongoing shift , in the form of unearned (interest) income, of the nation's wealth to the holders of bank deposits. In aggregate those in the productive economy are becoming poorer while those in the investment sector are becoming richer, literally by about NZ$30b in the year ended March 2008. The current turmoil in the financial sector in NZ is just a blip in a much broader process. New Zealand is, despite the debt loading, has? nowhere near the problems faced in the US? that have been caused by rampant greed and fraud on a massive scale. Instead, the foreseeable future here is an ongoing perceptible decline in the real living standards of ordinary people. Within the orthodox financial system the transfer of wealth from poor to rich can be corrected ONLY by massive taxation of the investment sector to create an equal and opposite monetary flow from the investment sector to the productive sector, say roughly $25billion in the year ended March 2008 Far and away the best solution is simply to remove interest on deposits. The key to reform and economic survival is to provide a mechanism where inflation in the investment sector and inflation in the productive sector are matched. Removing interest on deposits through statutory intervention will do that instantly. Otherwise, over time we will all become economic slaves in our own land. Cheers, Lowell On 5/10/2008, at 7:47 PM, Kevin Moore wrote: Quick summary: ? The last I read NZ debt level is higher per capita that the US. ? NZ imports a greater?% oif its oil that the US. NZ government budgets on oil at around $70 a barrel whether it is $90 or $140 a barrel. Trade imbalance varies a lot throughout the year but on average NZ spends approximate 1 billion a month more than it earns. ? Most farmers?culled a lot of stock due to last summer's drought, so are entering thr spring with very low stock numbers. ? Implosion?coming soon. ? Helen and company have done a great job in sabotaging the economy. but don't expect anything different from any of the others. ? K Survivors know the truth about energy, food and the environment, and are preparing for the meltdown.? Perishers don't know the truth,?or don't care, and still believe the system will provide, even as it starts to collapse. From: utr at raglan.net.nz To: le-members at list.wji.com Date: Sun, 5 Oct 2008 14:44:23 +1300 Subject: [LE] NZ economic analysis It's great to read the excellent economic analysis that comes out of the US alternative media but I'm wondering if anyone knows of someone in New Zealand who is able to discuss the state of the New Zealand economy in the same way that Mike Whitney on Information Clearing House does (for instance) . ? The recent events in the US financial markets and the their impact on the average citizen comes as no surprise since US writers have done such an excellent job in outlining the problems over there. It's frustrating though that I'm actually less informed about my own country and don't know, for instance, how much debt local banks are carrying, how much of that is in sub prime mortgages and just how close to a meltdown we actually are. ? I know this is not strictly on topic ?(although the meltdown of the national economy will probably provide fertile ground for LE) but I thought someone around here might be able to help me out ? Aaron _______________________________________________ LE-Members mailing list LE-Members at wji.com http://list.wji.com/mailman/listinfo/le-members _______________________________________________ LE-Members mailing list LE-Members at wji.com http://list.wji.com/mailman/listinfo/le-members _______________________________________________ LE-Members mailing list LE-Members at wji.com http://list.wji.com/mailman/listinfo/le-members Get the latest headlines with Yahoo!Xtra News - http://nz.news.yahoo.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://list.wji.com/pipermail/le-members/attachments/20081008/c8dac686/attachment-0001.html From cmhensch at gmail.com Wed Oct 8 19:20:52 2008 From: cmhensch at gmail.com (Christoph Hensch) Date: Thu, 09 Oct 2008 12:20:52 +1300 Subject: [LE] NZ economic analysis In-Reply-To: <218905.12162.qm@web36706.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <218905.12162.qm@web36706.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <48ED4054.6060807@gmail.com> Hi all, as moderator of this list I agree with Stuart. This is not a place for name calling. I also like to remind you that this list is about Living Economies and to discuss economic issues, not about peak oil and how to fix it. Interestingly enough, we are living through the most severe crisis of the financial sector since the great depression, but so far there was very little discussion on how we could fix our economics - Aarons link to that article at http://realitysandwich.com/money_and_crisis_civilization being the notable exception. If we want to really understand what Living Economies is, then we also need to understand that peak oil and climate change are a result of the economics and the money system we've been employing. As this article at realitysandwich.com (who has actually read it?) points out, anything that is being done today only serves to keep the life-devouring machine of the money system going for a bit longer. It is our interest-based bank-money system that brought about peak oil and climate change. It's the cause we need to fix, not the symptoms. (Sorry, I know, some on this list probably don't like to hear this!) I'd like to refocus the purpose of this list back to where it originally started: looking at economics and money systems. The stated or not stated oil reserves of Saudi Arabia are completely irrelevant to this list and a red herring to the purpose of what we would like to achieve: The creation of an economic system that respects the laws of nature and enriches live, not destroys it. Best regards, Christoph Hensch Moderator of this list and Trustee of the Living Economies Educational Trust, New Zealand Stuart Bramhall wrote: > In my view the most productive use of this list is for people to offer > access to research, data and expert opinion on how to interpret the > research and data. I do not find name calling - such as accusing > someone of doomsaying - at all helpful and I find this quite > objectionable. > > --- On *Wed, 8/10/08, Kevin Moore //* wrote: > > From: Kevin Moore > Subject: Re: [LE] NZ economic analysis > To: "Al Baddock" , > "le-members at list.wji.com" > Received: Wednesday, 8 October, 2008, 6:25 PM > > Probably the only terminology that is worth discussing at this > late stage in the game is > ASPO founder Colin Campbell's description peak oil as 'The > greatest discontinuity in > all of human history'. > > If members of this group understand what 'discontinuity' means and > what it implies, > we will have made some progress. > > Kevin > > /Survivors know the truth about energy, food and the environment, > and are preparing for the meltdown.// / > /Perishers don't know the truth, or don't care, and still believe > the system will provide, even as it starts to collapse./ > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Date: Wed, 8 Oct 2008 15:32:02 +1300 > To: le-members at list.wji.com > From: baddock at earthlight.co.nz > Subject: Re: [LE] NZ economic analysis > > Again, I find your use of much terminology is so loose as to rob > it of real meaning Kevin. > Nothing that transpired in 2005 came close to the scale of > collapse you were indicating during 2005. > Personally I require rather more precision in sources or analysis > in order for me to regard them as reliable or useful. If you > don't, that's fine, but it may be related to the difficulty you > identify in persuading people to your view. > > Allan > > > The world as we knew it did indeed end for many people around > the world in 2005. Most of the carnage was well hidden > because the corporate media chose not to report it (of > course). Western economies have been surviving by pushing > increasing numbers of poor people straight off the cliff, > particulalry those living in Africa, Asia and the Caribbean etc. > > The oil supply did indeed peak over 2005-6, just as predicted. > We are now trudging along the bumpy plateau, with all sorts of > scams and energy squandering schemes propping things up in the > short term, whilst making all our problems much worse in the > long term. Such has been the desperation to keep up the > appearance of normality since 2005. > > The extraction data for 2008 will prove very interesting > reading, since Russia seems to have joined the long list of > nations falling off the extraction cliff. > > The fact that there has been a greater delay in the arrival of > the crisis for NZ than some of us thought should be seen as a > great blessing, an opportunity to heed the warnings and > prepare. However, virtually no preparatiosn have been made, > other than by a handful of 'awake' people. The powers that be > have used the past three years to create even more > dysfunction than existed in 2005 and, naturally enough, the > bulk of the population has followed that lead. > > NZ imports 80% of its oil, and I stand by the statement that > if the oil tankers stopped arriving (for whatever reason) the > NZ economy would be in a tailspin in a week and grind to a > near standstill in a month. > > Geochemistry and geophysics will prevail, whatever anyone > might say or think to the contrary. If the meltdown does not > come as quickly as some of us thought, we should be extremely > thankful. > > I suspect we will discover over the next six months how useful > wishful thinking or human ingenuity are in a world of > declining fossil energy supply. > > Regards > > Kevin > > /Survivors know the truth about energy, food and the > environment, and are preparing for the meltdown. / > > /Perishers don't know the truth, or don't care, and still > believe the system will provide, even as it starts to collapse./ > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > -- Skype me at: cmhensch http://cocreate26.blogspot.com From helend at contact.net.nz Wed Oct 8 21:02:07 2008 From: helend at contact.net.nz (Helen Dew) Date: Thu, 9 Oct 2008 14:02:07 +1300 Subject: [LE] NZ economic analysis In-Reply-To: <48ED4054.6060807@gmail.com> Message-ID: <003b01c929aa$a792e190$0201a8c0@IBMKEKR55A> Thank you Christoph! I'm looking forward to catching up on this list when I return on 14th Oct. from the Ecoshow. Helen Dew Ph 06 379 8034 Living Economies www.le.org.nz Transition Towns http://www.transitiontowns.org.nz/ ~~~ transitioning from oil dependency to local resilience ~~~ -----Original Message----- From: le-members-bounces at wji.com [mailto:le-members-bounces at wji.com] On Behalf Of Christoph Hensch Sent: Thursday, 9 October 2008 12:21 p.m. To: le-members at list.wji.com Subject: Re: [LE] NZ economic analysis Hi all, as moderator of this list I agree with Stuart. This is not a place for name calling. I also like to remind you that this list is about Living Economies and to discuss economic issues, not about peak oil and how to fix it. Interestingly enough, we are living through the most severe crisis of the financial sector since the great depression, but so far there was very little discussion on how we could fix our economics - Aarons link to that article at http://realitysandwich.com/money_and_crisis_civilization being the notable exception. If we want to really understand what Living Economies is, then we also need to understand that peak oil and climate change are a result of the economics and the money system we've been employing. As this article at realitysandwich.com (who has actually read it?) points out, anything that is being done today only serves to keep the life-devouring machine of the money system going for a bit longer. It is our interest-based bank-money system that brought about peak oil and climate change. It's the cause we need to fix, not the symptoms. (Sorry, I know, some on this list probably don't like to hear this!) I'd like to refocus the purpose of this list back to where it originally started: looking at economics and money systems. The stated or not stated oil reserves of Saudi Arabia are completely irrelevant to this list and a red herring to the purpose of what we would like to achieve: The creation of an economic system that respects the laws of nature and enriches live, not destroys it. Best regards, Christoph Hensch Moderator of this list and Trustee of the Living Economies Educational Trust, New Zealand Stuart Bramhall wrote: > In my view the most productive use of this list is for people to offer > access to research, data and expert opinion on how to interpret the > research and data. I do not find name calling - such as accusing > someone of doomsaying - at all helpful and I find this quite > objectionable. > > --- On *Wed, 8/10/08, Kevin Moore //* wrote: > > From: Kevin Moore > Subject: Re: [LE] NZ economic analysis > To: "Al Baddock" , > "le-members at list.wji.com" > Received: Wednesday, 8 October, 2008, 6:25 PM > > Probably the only terminology that is worth discussing at this > late stage in the game is > ASPO founder Colin Campbell's description peak oil as 'The > greatest discontinuity in > all of human history'. > > If members of this group understand what 'discontinuity' means and > what it implies, > we will have made some progress. > > Kevin > > /Survivors know the truth about energy, food and the environment, > and are preparing for the meltdown.// / > /Perishers don't know the truth, or don't care, and still believe > the system will provide, even as it starts to collapse./ > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Date: Wed, 8 Oct 2008 15:32:02 +1300 > To: le-members at list.wji.com > From: baddock at earthlight.co.nz > Subject: Re: [LE] NZ economic analysis > > Again, I find your use of much terminology is so loose as to rob > it of real meaning Kevin. > Nothing that transpired in 2005 came close to the scale of > collapse you were indicating during 2005. > Personally I require rather more precision in sources or analysis > in order for me to regard them as reliable or useful. If you > don't, that's fine, but it may be related to the difficulty you > identify in persuading people to your view. > > Allan > > > The world as we knew it did indeed end for many people around > the world in 2005. Most of the carnage was well hidden > because the corporate media chose not to report it (of > course). Western economies have been surviving by pushing > increasing numbers of poor people straight off the cliff, > particulalry those living in Africa, Asia and the Caribbean etc. > > The oil supply did indeed peak over 2005-6, just as predicted. > We are now trudging along the bumpy plateau, with all sorts of > scams and energy squandering schemes propping things up in the > short term, whilst making all our problems much worse in the > long term. Such has been the desperation to keep up the > appearance of normality since 2005. > > The extraction data for 2008 will prove very interesting > reading, since Russia seems to have joined the long list of > nations falling off the extraction cliff. > > The fact that there has been a greater delay in the arrival of > the crisis for NZ than some of us thought should be seen as a > great blessing, an opportunity to heed the warnings and > prepare. However, virtually no preparatiosn have been made, > other than by a handful of 'awake' people. The powers that be > have used the past three years to create even more > dysfunction than existed in 2005 and, naturally enough, the > bulk of the population has followed that lead. > > NZ imports 80% of its oil, and I stand by the statement that > if the oil tankers stopped arriving (for whatever reason) the > NZ economy would be in a tailspin in a week and grind to a > near standstill in a month. > > Geochemistry and geophysics will prevail, whatever anyone > might say or think to the contrary. If the meltdown does not > come as quickly as some of us thought, we should be extremely > thankful. > > I suspect we will discover over the next six months how useful > wishful thinking or human ingenuity are in a world of > declining fossil energy supply. > > Regards > > Kevin > > /Survivors know the truth about energy, food and the > environment, and are preparing for the meltdown. / > > /Perishers don't know the truth, or don't care, and still > believe the system will provide, even as it starts to collapse./ > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > -- Skype me at: cmhensch http://cocreate26.blogspot.com _______________________________________________ LE-Members mailing list LE-Members at wji.com http://list.wji.com/mailman/listinfo/le-members From elinwood at westnet.com.au Thu Oct 9 01:25:59 2008 From: elinwood at westnet.com.au (Ella Linwood) Date: Thu, 09 Oct 2008 15:25:59 +1000 Subject: [LE] Refocusing on Economics Discussion? Message-ID: <20081009052613.542C52BEFE3@hosted01.westnet.com.au> Refocusing on economics discussion? Christoph wrote: I'd like to refocus the purpose of this list back to where it originally started: looking at economics and money systems. The stated or not stated oil reserves of Saudi Arabia are completely irrelevant to this list and a red herring to the purpose of what we would like to achieve: When I read this I experienced a sense of relief ? of ?Yes me too - I had thought of suggesting the same myself? and I also experience a ?No?. Hang on a minute- ?completely irrelevant? is too reminiscent of the specialised, narrow ?autistic? focus of mainstream economics. ?The three ?E?s of Economy, Ecology and Energy, are inseparable.? Christoph?s request is the moderator?s task of recognising and regulating boundary intrusion. its my understanding that as all parts of the system negotiate semi-permeable boundaries for mutual self-interest ? then we here, can negotiate our self-interest in this. Do we agree with Christoph?s request (or not-negotiable demand) or not? Personally, I?m fine with keeping going with the discussion for longer, maybe a month and reassessing. I imagine that even though the climate change, peak oil and population discussions seem on one level to be ?off topic?, on another, people are nevertheless relating such discussion to the question ?what is Living Economies? ? how do these issues impact on what develops in the field of economy??. In keeping with the primary aim and intention of this group as defined by Christoph in his email, then, I expect that the economic focus will return. Were the economic focus to remain secondary for ?too long?, then that would not suit me either. This is a very valuable forum for me - my primary place for exploring Living Economies thought and practice whereas I hear peak oil, climate change and population growth discussion everywhere around me. ( though I tend to be around such people and tune in to the radio on such things) Also, I haven't seen anywhere where the aims of the LE list have been defined and what it is that we want to achieve. It may exist somewhere but I don't think I received that when I signed onto this list heaven's knows how many years ago now. Hence what's acceptable and what's not is potentially woolly at this point. What would work for me, my intention for this egroup is for... sharing, exploration of ideas and practices in the development of Living Economies - in a manner that is the most expressive of living economies/living systems as we can manage at the time. ( ie, the means shapes the ends/ being doing yourself as you wish the world to be). Going by a strict interpretation of my criteria then, the great deal that is posted here on the problems in conventional politics and economics are every bit a deviation from topic as climate change, peak oil and population growth might perhaps be, and in my opinion much more so as these later are our present and future environment! Trying to be informed of every nuance of the conventional system as it collapses, reconfigures, melts down, bubbles up, implodes, explodes, gets bailed-out... or rescued (if you are into Orwellian speak) - its all giving an inordinate amount of attention and resources to the nearly past, to the terminal patient, rather than the struggling new-born, who is lying without enough warmth, attention and care. Ella (putting in my two cents worth) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://list.wji.com/pipermail/le-members/attachments/20081009/001ad37d/attachment.html From elinwood at westnet.com.au Thu Oct 9 03:27:17 2008 From: elinwood at westnet.com.au (Ella Linwood) Date: Thu, 09 Oct 2008 17:27:17 +1000 Subject: [LE] $ co-responsible in climate change and peak oil Message-ID: <20081009072721.754AC2BEDAF@hosted01.westnet.com.au> Christoph wrote: It is our interest-based bank-money system that brought about peak oil and climate change It's the cause we need to fix, not the symptoms'.. I don't see a direct one to one direct causality with this but rather a co-responsibility in something more complex. That is to say, I see that its more a matter of parallel development of a competitive, monopolistic financial/political system which among other things has been highly suitable for supporting growth - especially our technological exploitation of fossil fuels, all mined minerals, and top soil. The use of cheap energy, (where something like 40 litres of petrol does the physical work of a man for 2 years... or some such incredible statistic), has given us the surplus energy with which to keep on growing and consuming as we do and has contributed to peak oil and climate change. The money system has enabled, supported, sponsored, encouraged all of the above, but I don't see it as being solely causal. Causality is not as straightforward as it used to be anyway, especially given the changes in thinking that have been happening within physics. Some would point rather to our phase of species evolution from dominator, immature, growth-oriented competitive ways of doing things..... to integrative, mature, cooperative and stable non-growing ways of doing things. In other words, the money system is the result of our thinking - humans dreamed it up, and humans cooperated with it, all this time, knowing no differently as we express power-over or power-with relations in all aspects of our lives, (not just in money and politics). In terms of the extrication from the collective mess we are in then our debt money system and its political influence, works against us in a way that is just staggering. The debt-money system is so harmful and counterproductive now that we need stability not growth and is sabotaging our attempts to deal with peak oil and climate change in ways that have a chance of working. Ella ( 4 cents worth) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://list.wji.com/pipermail/le-members/attachments/20081009/505a2d28/attachment-0001.html From kevin_enviro at hotmail.com Thu Oct 9 03:52:34 2008 From: kevin_enviro at hotmail.com (Kevin Moore) Date: Thu, 9 Oct 2008 07:52:34 +0000 Subject: [LE] NZ economic analysis In-Reply-To: <48ED4054.6060807@gmail.com> References: <218905.12162.qm@web36706.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <48ED4054.6060807@gmail.com> Message-ID: I am heartened to hear that this forum will not toelerate name-calling. I am disappointed to read that some members still think there can be a discussion about economics without a dicsussion about energy supply or the environment. Reductionist thinking is most unhelpful if the group is genuinely seeking to make intellectual progress. The economics-energy equation is extremely simple: No energy supply = No economy And of course No economy = No need for a monetary systemIn view of the fact that no combination of so-called alternatives can ever supply anything more than the tiniest fraction (arguably around 5%) of the energy currently provided by fossil fuels, and bearing in mind that we cannot possibly continue using fossil fuels and still have a planet to live on (Abrupt Climate Change), that provides only one basis for discussions about future economics: using sunlight at hte same rate it arrives. We will therefore end up with an economy similar to that of the 14th century at best and similar to the Stone Age at worst (bearing in mid that we have nearly destroyed most of the topsoil and have almost destroyed the ocean chemistry that makes lie possible) . We are headed for an economy based on the use of wood and ohter plant materials, whether we find it acceptable or not. This excerpt from todays' Energy Bulletin 'The Power of the nonrational' sums things up nicely, I believe: " ? the belief in human omnipotence ? is a core article of faith in contemporary industrial societies. It?s so pervasive that its effects are rarely noticed, but it undergirds an astonishing range of popular attitudes and ideas. It?s axiomatic in the industrial world that anything unsatisfactory is a problem in need of a solution, and equally axiomatic that a solution can be found for it. The suggestion that some deeply unsatisfactory conditions may not be problems that can be solved but, rather, are predicaments that must be lived with, is at once unthinkable and offensive to a great many people these days. Regards Kevin Survivors know the truth about energy, food and the environment, and are preparing for the meltdown. Perishers don't know the truth, or don't care, and still believe the system will provide, even as it starts to collapse.> Date: Thu, 9 Oct 2008 12:20:52 +1300> From: cmhensch at gmail.com> To: le-members at list.wji.com> Subject: Re: [LE] NZ economic analysis> > Hi all,> as moderator of this list I agree with Stuart. This is not a place for > name calling. I also like to remind you that this list is about Living > Economies and to discuss economic issues, not about peak oil and how to > fix it. Interestingly enough, we are living through the most severe > crisis of the financial sector since the great depression, but so far > there was very little discussion on how we could fix our economics - > Aarons link to that article at > http://realitysandwich.com/money_and_crisis_civilization being the > notable exception.> > If we want to really understand what Living Economies is, then we also > need to understand that peak oil and climate change are a result of the > economics and the money system we've been employing. As this article at > realitysandwich.com (who has actually read it?) points out, anything > that is being done today only serves to keep the life-devouring machine > of the money system going for a bit longer. It is our interest-based > bank-money system that brought about peak oil and climate change. It's > the cause we need to fix, not the symptoms. (Sorry, I know, some on this > list probably don't like to hear this!)> > I'd like to refocus the purpose of this list back to where it originally > started: looking at economics and money systems. The stated or not > stated oil reserves of Saudi Arabia are completely irrelevant to this > list and a red herring to the purpose of what we would like to achieve: > The creation of an economic system that respects the laws of nature and > enriches live, not destroys it.> > Best regards,> > Christoph Hensch> Moderator of this list and> Trustee of the Living Economies Educational Trust, New Zealand> > > > Stuart Bramhall wrote:> > In my view the most productive use of this list is for people to offer > > access to research, data and expert opinion on how to interpret the > > research and data. I do not find name calling - such as accusing > > someone of doomsaying - at all helpful and I find this quite > > objectionable.> >> > --- On *Wed, 8/10/08, Kevin Moore //* wrote:> >> > From: Kevin Moore > > Subject: Re: [LE] NZ economic analysis> > To: "Al Baddock" ,> > "le-members at list.wji.com" > > Received: Wednesday, 8 October, 2008, 6:25 PM> >> > Probably the only terminology that is worth discussing at this> > late stage in the game is> > ASPO founder Colin Campbell's description peak oil as 'The> > greatest discontinuity in> > all of human history'.> > > > If members of this group understand what 'discontinuity' means and> > what it implies,> > we will have made some progress.> >> > Kevin> >> > /Survivors know the truth about energy, food and the environment,> > and are preparing for the meltdown.// /> > /Perishers don't know the truth, or don't care, and still believe> > the system will provide, even as it starts to collapse./> >> >> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------> > Date: Wed, 8 Oct 2008 15:32:02 +1300> > To: le-members at list.wji.com> > From: baddock at earthlight.co.nz> > Subject: Re: [LE] NZ economic analysis> >> > Again, I find your use of much terminology is so loose as to rob> > it of real meaning Kevin.> > Nothing that transpired in 2005 came close to the scale of> > collapse you were indicating during 2005.> > Personally I require rather more precision in sources or analysis> > in order for me to regard them as reliable or useful. If you> > don't, that's fine, but it may be related to the difficulty you> > identify in persuading people to your view.> >> > Allan> >> >> > The world as we knew it did indeed end for many people around> > the world in 2005. Most of the carnage was well hidden> > because the corporate media chose not to report it (of> > course). Western economies have been surviving by pushing> > increasing numbers of poor people straight off the cliff,> > particulalry those living in Africa, Asia and the Caribbean etc.> > > > The oil supply did indeed peak over 2005-6, just as predicted.> > We are now trudging along the bumpy plateau, with all sorts of> > scams and energy squandering schemes propping things up in the> > short term, whilst making all our problems much worse in the> > long term. Such has been the desperation to keep up the> > appearance of normality since 2005. > > > > The extraction data for 2008 will prove very interesting> > reading, since Russia seems to have joined the long list of> > nations falling off the extraction cliff.> > > > The fact that there has been a greater delay in the arrival of> > the crisis for NZ than some of us thought should be seen as a> > great blessing, an opportunity to heed the warnings and> > prepare. However, virtually no preparatiosn have been made,> > other than by a handful of 'awake' people. The powers that be> > have used the past three years to create even more> > dysfunction than existed in 2005 and, naturally enough, the> > bulk of the population has followed that lead.> > > > NZ imports 80% of its oil, and I stand by the statement that> > if the oil tankers stopped arriving (for whatever reason) the> > NZ economy would be in a tailspin in a week and grind to a> > near standstill in a month.> > > > Geochemistry and geophysics will prevail, whatever anyone> > might say or think to the contrary. If the meltdown does not> > come as quickly as some of us thought, we should be extremely> > thankful.> > > > I suspect we will discover over the next six months how useful> > wishful thinking or human ingenuity are in a world of> > declining fossil energy supply. > > > > Regards> > > > Kevin > >> > /Survivors know the truth about energy, food and the> > environment, and are preparing for the meltdown. /> >> > /Perishers don't know the truth, or don't care, and still> > believe the system will provide, even as it starts to collapse./> >> >> >> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------> >> > -- > Skype me at: cmhensch> http://cocreate26.blogspot.com> > _______________________________________________> LE-Members mailing list> LE-Members at wji.com> http://list.wji.com/mailman/listinfo/le-members _________________________________________________________________ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://list.wji.com/pipermail/le-members/attachments/20081009/a3ca09a6/attachment.html From kevin_enviro at hotmail.com Thu Oct 9 04:20:58 2008 From: kevin_enviro at hotmail.com (Kevin Moore) Date: Thu, 9 Oct 2008 08:20:58 +0000 Subject: [LE] $ co-responsible in climate change and peak oil In-Reply-To: <20081009072721.754AC2BEDAF@hosted01.westnet.com.au> References: <20081009072721.754AC2BEDAF@hosted01.westnet.com.au> Message-ID: I heartily agree with your comments Ella. Most of the time money is simply a form of exchange for energy or resources (bearing in mind that we do not obtain any resources without the expenditure of energy). Having all that ancient sunlight just lying around unused was far too tempting ofr our ancestors, especially when it was realised that ancient sunlight in the form of coal and oil had such a phenomenal energy densities. Digging up coal or drilling for oil is equivalent to digging up money. No wonder so many people were and still are so desperate to do it, even at the expense of their own children's futures. I suggested at the ASPO symposium 2 years ago that logs of wood could well become a medium of exchange at some stage in the future (along with potatoes). Kind regards Kevin Survivors know the truth about energy, food and the environment, and are preparing for the meltdown. Perishers don't know the truth, or don't care, and still believe the system will provide, even as it starts to collapse. Date: Thu, 9 Oct 2008 17:27:17 +1000To: le-members at list.wji.comFrom: elinwood at westnet.com.auSubject: [LE] $ co-responsible in climate change and peak oil Christoph wrote: It is our interest-based bank-money system that brought about peak oil and climate change It's the cause we need to fix, not the symptoms?.. I don?t see a direct one to one direct causality with this but rather a co-responsibility in something more complex. That is to say, I see that its more a matter of parallel development of a competitive, monopolistic financial/political system which among other things has been highly suitable for supporting growth - especially our technological exploitation of fossil fuels, all mined minerals, and top soil. The use of cheap energy, (where something like 40 litres of petrol does the physical work of a man for 2 years... or some such incredible statistic), has given us the surplus energy with which to keep on growing and consuming as we do and has contributed to peak oil and climate change. The money system has enabled, supported, sponsored, encouraged all of the above, but I don?t see it as being solely causal. Causality is not as straightforward as it used to be anyway, especially given the changes in thinking that have been happening within physics. Some would point rather to our phase of species evolution from dominator, immature, growth-oriented competitive ways of doing things..... to integrative, mature, cooperative and stable non-growing ways of doing things. In other words, the money system is the result of our thinking - humans dreamed it up, and humans cooperated with it, all this time, knowing no differently as we express power-over or power-with relations in all aspects of our lives, (not just in money and politics). In terms of the extrication from the collective mess we are in then our debt money system and its political influence, works against us in a way that is just staggering. The debt-money system is so harmful and counterproductive now that we need stability not growth and is sabotaging our attempts to deal with peak oil and climate change in ways that have a chance of working. Ella ( 4 cents worth) _________________________________________________________________ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://list.wji.com/pipermail/le-members/attachments/20081009/5f9c281c/attachment-0001.html From elinwood at westnet.com.au Thu Oct 9 05:46:46 2008 From: elinwood at westnet.com.au (Ella Linwood) Date: Thu, 09 Oct 2008 19:46:46 +1000 Subject: [LE] PS $ co-responsible in climate change and peak oil Message-ID: <20081009094649.9E8CF2370A0@hosted03.westnet.com.au> PS., I realised straight after sending my email that I didn't acknowledge the ways in which I agree with Christoph about the money system causing climate change and peak oil - that is to say; the interest on money has to be found, which fuels the need to grow to pay the interest, which leads to policies and processes of expansion, consumerism- the need to sell more and more stuff, built-in obsolescence, concentration of ownership as companies grow larger and larger , hence decreased people power vis a vis corporate power, especially financial corporate power = all adding up to climate change and excessive use of oil that wouldn't otherwise occur. Apologies for my one-sideness in my pursuit of putting a point and going for 'being right', Ella From greg.bennett at xnet.co.nz Thu Oct 9 07:12:50 2008 From: greg.bennett at xnet.co.nz (Greg Bennett) Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2008 00:12:50 +1300 Subject: [LE] Convincing the people that matter Message-ID: I have always been concerned with the environmental problems happening to our planet but could not pin point the main cause of this until I attended Christoph's course: "Economics As If Life Matters" and then reading Deidre's book "Healthy Money, Healthy Planet". It was then that everything fell into place - that our economic system is the core reason behind continuing environmental degradation, resource depletion & escalating social problems. I have continued to read books & articles on the similar topics. I went thru stages of despair & anger. I was frustrated that I could not get the message to other people. Even when people agreed with me they never changed their way of life. I could see the story every day written in newspaper headlines but saw that people were not reaching the same conclusions. I came to a realisation of one universal truth: "When presented with information, people will believe what they want to believe". Climate science is a perfect example of this. Economic reporting is another. It is very difficult to convince people once they have made their minds up, especially if you are experincing those feelings of despair & anger, then people switch to defensive mode. Many times I have made presentations to Councils. These people are exposed to screeds of information, especially at LTCCP time. The quickest way to turn them off is to approach them with those negative feelings (I suspect that this might be your problem Kevin). The best results are acheived when you are freindly, articulate and most importantly - brief. It really helps when you show by example - farmers markets, local currencies, stream care etc. The information is out there. A wee while ago I sent an email to my local Mayor with 2 brief questions: Have you ever heard of Transition Towns? and: has the Council ever had submissions on the Transition Town concept? I included a link to the Transition Towns website. His reply was no & no. I expected these answers. It is a bit sad he had not heard of it as it has been on National Radio and internet but the Mayor & Councillors are very business & farming orientated - growth is good mindset. That brief email was all that was required, even if he never follows the link to the website he has now heard of it & I'm sure he will hear of the concept again. If I sent him screeds of information about Peak Oil, Climate Change & Transition Towns it would have been a waste of time because he already has enough official crap to read & unless he is really interested he will switch off. I was motivated to write this from the tone & content of the recent posts to this list. I would be fairly accurate in saying that 99% of the people on this list are already aware of the problems outlined above so we don't need to be consistently reminded of them. I just thought I would share some of my experiences & thoughts and look forward to more fresh ideas & concepts from all of you. Cheers Greg PS: This email is bordering on too much information at once. From cmhensch at gmail.com Thu Oct 9 16:13:33 2008 From: cmhensch at gmail.com (Christoph Hensch) Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2008 09:13:33 +1300 Subject: [LE] Refocusing on Economics Discussion? In-Reply-To: <20081009052613.542C52BEFE3@hosted01.westnet.com.au> References: <20081009052613.542C52BEFE3@hosted01.westnet.com.au> Message-ID: <48EE65ED.8040700@gmail.com> Well, it seems that we have started a fruitful discussion towards the meaning of "Living Economies". For those who wonder about the primary aim of this list, they may look up the Mission Statement of the host of the list, the Living Economies Educational Trust on their website at http://www.le.org.nz . It says: /We are working for healthy economies for Aotearoa/New Zealand - balanced, sustainable and empowering - based on and respecting the living systems of our planet. / Some of you may also remember that the Living Economies Trust first saw the light of the day as 'Stable Money Trust'. Therefore there might be a slight bias towards issues that have to do with the money system - mainly the fact that bank-issued interest-based debt money might be the core motivation of the worlds economic behaviour, or as Ella said in her most recent email: the interest on money has to be found, which fuels the need to grow to pay the interest, which leads to policies and processes of expansion, consumerism- the need to sell more and more stuff, built-in obsolescence, concentration of ownership as companies grow larger and larger , hence decreased people power vis a vis corporate power, especially financial corporate power = all adding up to climate change and excessive use of oil that wouldn't otherwise occur. Now, based on Living Economies mission statement, there is no question that the three 'E's of Economy, Ecology and Energy, are inseparable. In fact, Economy stands for how we exchange. Living Economies is about the mindset and the exchange mechanisms we employ (like: Are we paying for what we are using? Are we gifting to each other? How much is Nature charging us what we are taking from her? Have we put systems into place that fairly attribute costs to users? Who 'owns' what? Why are we obliged by law to use some tokens to make payments and pay a heavy fee (interest) to some big private corporations (banks) to use those tokens?.... and there are many more relevant questions that need asking!) I repeat: it is about the mindset we employ to give and receive. For the moment, it is irrelevant if we apply this mindset to exchanging wooden toys, barrels of oil or nuclear bombs. However, once we understand the mindset we apply, and the systems it has spawned (like the money system!), and once we've adopted different ways of doing economics, we will quite matter of factly abandon the production of nuclear bombs. Before that can happen we need to realise though, that we have to let go of many cherished thoughts and concepts - like the one of 'The Economy' as we know it. We may simplify the equation to 'No energy supply = No economy'. However, that completely disregards every human effort ever exerted on this planet, be it paid or unpaid. Maybe one of the first notions we need to throw over board is that one: Money has been exchanged for a service or for goods, therefore 'the economy' has grown and we are all wealthier. Living Economies is about recognizing that there is more to 'economics' than the conventional dollar-economy. Way more! Unfortunately we are so trained to always think in terms of money (which is only one particular kind of money), that when this one particular kind of money experiences a mortal crisis, like now, the only thing we can think of is how we can 'rescue' the financial sector and get it all back to normal. As Kevin quoted (and I absolutely agree): *The suggestion that some deeply unsatisfactory conditions may not be problems that can be solved but, rather, are predicaments that must be lived with, is at once unthinkable and offensive to a great many people these days. * Or, as a famous economist once said: *"The ideas which are here expressed so laboriously are extremely simple and should be obvious. The difficulty lies not in the new ideas, but in escaping from the old ones, which ramify, for those brought up as most of us have been, into every corner of our minds." * -- John Maynard Keynes / /So, to me, the real challenge of the group on this list is: *Are we able to come up with a way of doing economics that allows us to leave the current financial system behind, and that is */*balanced, sustainable and empowering - based on and respecting the living systems of our planet?* / Best regards, Christoph *** / / Ella Linwood wrote: > Refocusing on economics discussion? > > Christoph wrote: > > I'd like to refocus the purpose of this list back to where it originally > started: looking at economics and money systems. The stated or not > stated oil reserves of Saudi Arabia are completely irrelevant to this > list and a red herring to the purpose of what we would like to achieve: > > When I read this I experienced a sense of relief -- of 'Yes... me too > - I had thought of suggesting the same myself'... and I also > experience a 'No'. Hang on a minute- 'completely irrelevant' is too > reminiscent of the specialised, narrow 'autistic' focus of mainstream > economics. "The three 'E's of Economy, Ecology and Energy, are > inseparable." > > Christoph's request is the moderator's task of recognising and > regulating boundary intrusion. its my understanding that as all parts > of the system negotiate semi-permeable boundaries for mutual > self-interest -- then we here, can negotiate our self-interest in > this. Do we agree with Christoph's request (or not-negotiable demand) > or not? > > Personally, I'm fine with keeping going with the discussion for > longer, maybe a month and reassessing. I imagine that even though the > climate change, peak oil and population discussions seem on one level > to be 'off topic', on another, people are nevertheless relating such > discussion to the question ..."what is Living Economies? -- how do > these issues impact on what develops in the field of economy?". > > In keeping with the primary aim and intention of this group as > defined by Christoph in his email, then, I expect that the economic > focus will return. > > Were the economic focus to remain secondary for 'too long', then that > would not suit me either. This is a very valuable forum for me - my > primary place for exploring Living Economies thought and practice... > whereas I hear peak oil, climate change and population growth > discussion everywhere around me. ( though I tend to be around such > people and tune in to the radio on such things) > > Also, I haven't seen anywhere where the aims of the LE list have been > defined and what it is that we want to achieve. It may exist somewhere > but I don't think I received that when I signed onto this list > heaven's knows how many years ago now. Hence what's acceptable and > what's not is potentially woolly at this point. > > What would work for me, my intention for this egroup is for... > sharing, exploration of ideas and practices in the development of > Living Economies - in a manner that is the most expressive of living > economies/living systems as we can manage at the time. ( ie, the means > shapes the ends/ being doing yourself as you wish the world to be). > > Going by a strict interpretation of my criteria then, the great deal > that is posted here on the problems in conventional politics and > economics are every bit a deviation from topic as climate change, peak > oil and population growth might perhaps be, and in my opinion much > more so as these later are our present and future environment! Trying > to be informed of every nuance of the conventional system as it > collapses, reconfigures, melts down, bubbles up, implodes, explodes, > gets bailed-out... or rescued (if you are into Orwellian speak) - its > all giving an inordinate amount of attention and resources to the > nearly past, to the terminal patient, rather than the struggling > new-born, who is lying without enough warmth, attention and care. > > Ella (putting in my two cents worth) > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > LE-Members mailing list > LE-Members at wji.com > http://list.wji.com/mailman/listinfo/le-members > -- Skype me at: cmhensch http://cocreate26.blogspot.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://list.wji.com/pipermail/le-members/attachments/20081009/cd30bd44/attachment.html From baddock at earthlight.co.nz Thu Oct 9 18:26:58 2008 From: baddock at earthlight.co.nz (Al Baddock) Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2008 11:26:58 +1300 Subject: [LE] Refocusing on Economics Discussion? In-Reply-To: <48EE65ED.8040700@gmail.com> References: <20081009052613.542C52BEFE3@hosted01.westnet.com.au> <48EE65ED.8040700@gmail.com> Message-ID: Is it going too far to suggest that this List is an example of such an economy as Christoph identifies - or at least an indicator of where attention could usefully be directed? It seems to me an awful lot of discussion is expended on what's wrong with the dominant conventional economic model when through history it seems the most dramatic advances have come not from pulling down existing models, but building more successful models which displace the old. The internet list model is an example, surely, of an ancient and enduring economic model adapted to contemporary circumstances: a community exchange based on mutual, but self-determined benefit and costs. It is way of trading value "that allows us to leave the current financial system behind, and that is balanced, sustainable and empowering - based on and respecting the living systems of our planet?" - It is open to all to contribute value or draw value from, without regard (in most part) to the financial system, and meets the other criteria Christoph specifies (with the matter of sustainability perhaps requiring some further scrutiny). If the model is before us, the challenge then falls to identifying the essential elements of it - i.e. it's definition. I'd suggest the essence is simplicity. Free participation would seem essential (i.e. free to take part or not as one chooses, albeit there may be practical determinants, such as being able to reach the market, or having nothing to exchange). Equal member ownership is probably a necessary protective element to prevent usurpation, and may be fundamental to Christoph's question as to whether we are paying or giving. I'd suggest in the model we are currently participating in here on this List, we are neither paying nor giving. We are contributing to something in which we have a shared interest, and the returns come in proportion to how successful our collective venture is - just as when we participate in a pot luck dinner with friends. If the collective endeavour proves not to deliver benefits sufficient to balance the contribution we feel we are making, we stop participating. There is no external determinant of what is an adequate return for any individual. Returns need not be defined nor expressed in any specific currency. To increase the value of the returns, each participant has an interest in increasing the net value of the endeavour and thereby an interest in encouraging contributors of real value to participate - thereby self-regulating against damaging, deficient or low value contributions i.e. keeping the economy alive and healthy. I'd suggest the medical maxim "Primum non nocere" is probably the critical missing element from most economic systems and is critical to any truly living economy. (i.e. "First, do no harm."). It also provides probably the only law necessary to police, and protects against those who may look to exploit the returns without contributing. If it does no harm, there's no problem. How much further definition can be sustained without becoming prescriptive and exclusive? - with exclusivity inherently generating negative imperatives. No doubt, others can identify something obvious I have missed. Allan At 9:13 AM +1300 10/10/08, Christoph Hensch wrote: >Well, it seems that we have started a fruitful >discussion towards the meaning of "Living >Economies". For those who wonder about the >primary aim of this list, they may look up the >Mission Statement of the host of the list, the >Living Economies Educational Trust on their >website at >http://www.le.org.nz . > >It says: We are working for healthy economies >for Aotearoa/New Zealand - balanced, sustainable >and empowering - based on and respecting the >living systems of our planet. > >Some of you may also remember that the Living >Economies Trust first saw the light of the day >as 'Stable Money Trust'. Therefore there might >be a slight bias towards issues that have to do >with the money system - mainly the fact that >bank-issued interest-based debt money might be >the core motivation of the worlds economic >behaviour, or as Ella said in her most recent >email: >the interest on money has to be found, which >fuels the need to grow to pay the interest, >which leads to policies and processes of >expansion, consumerism- the need to sell more >and more stuff, built-in obsolescence, >concentration of ownership as companies grow >larger and larger , hence decreased people power >vis a vis corporate power, especially financial >corporate power = all adding up to climate >change and excessive use of oil that wouldn't >otherwise occur. > >Now, based on Living Economies mission >statement, there is no question that the three >'E's of Economy, Ecology and Energy, are >inseparable. In fact, Economy stands for how we >exchange. Living Economies is about the mindset >and the exchange mechanisms we employ (like: Are >we paying for what we are using? Are we gifting >to each other? How much is Nature charging us >what we are taking from her? Have we put systems >into place that fairly attribute costs to users? >Who 'owns' what? Why are we obliged by law to >use some tokens to make payments and pay a heavy >fee (interest) to some big private corporations >(banks) to use those tokens?.... and there are >many more relevant questions that need asking!) > >I repeat: it is about the mindset we employ to >give and receive. For the moment, it is >irrelevant if we apply this mindset to >exchanging wooden toys, barrels of oil or >nuclear bombs. However, once we understand the >mindset we apply, and the systems it has spawned >(like the money system!), and once we've adopted >different ways of doing economics, we will quite >matter of factly abandon the production of >nuclear bombs. Before that can happen we need to >realise though, that we have to let go of many >cherished thoughts and concepts - like the one >of 'The Economy' as we know it. We may simplify >the equation to 'No energy supply = No economy'. >However, that completely disregards every human >effort ever exerted on this planet, be it paid >or unpaid. Maybe one of the first notions we >need to throw over board is that one: Money has >been exchanged for a service or for goods, >therefore 'the economy' has grown and we are all >wealthier. > >Living Economies is about recognizing that there >is more to 'economics' than the conventional >dollar-economy. Way more! Unfortunately we are >so trained to always think in terms of money >(which is only one particular kind of money), >that when this one particular kind of money >experiences a mortal crisis, like now, the only >thing we can think of is how we can 'rescue' the >financial sector and get it all back to normal. >As Kevin quoted (and I absolutely agree): The >suggestion that some deeply unsatisfactory >conditions may not be problems that can be >solved but, rather, are predicaments that must >be lived with, is at once unthinkable and >offensive to a great many people these days. > >Or, as a famous economist once said: "The ideas >which are here expressed so laboriously are >extremely simple and should be obvious. The >difficulty lies not in the new ideas, but in >escaping from the old ones, which ramify, for >those brought up as most of us have been, into >every corner of our minds." - John Maynard >Keynes > >So, to me, the real challenge of the group on >this list is: Are we able to come up with a way >of doing economics that allows us to leave the >current financial system behind, and that is >balanced, sustainable and empowering - based on >and respecting the living systems of our planet? > >Best regards, >Christoph > >*** > > >Ella Linwood wrote: > >>Refocusing on economics discussion? >> >>Christoph wrote: >> >>I'd like to refocus the purpose of this list back to where it originally >>started: looking at economics and money systems. The stated or not >>stated oil reserves of Saudi Arabia are completely irrelevant to this >>list and a red herring to the purpose of what we would like to achieve: >> >>When I read this I experienced a sense of >>relief - of 'Yes? me too - I had thought of >>suggesting the same myself'? and I also >>experience a 'No'. Hang on a minute- >>'completely irrelevant' is too reminiscent of >>the specialised, narrow 'autistic' focus of >>mainstream economics. "The three 'E's of >>Economy, Ecology and Energy, are inseparable." >> >>Christoph's request is the moderator's task of >>recognising and regulating boundary intrusion. >>its my understanding that as all parts of the >>system negotiate semi-permeable boundaries for >>mutual self-interest - then we here, can >>negotiate our self-interest in this. Do we >>agree with Christoph's request (or >>not-negotiable demand) or not? >> >>Personally, I'm fine with keeping going with >>the discussion for longer, maybe a month and >>reassessing. I imagine that even though the >>climate change, peak oil and population >>discussions seem on one level to be 'off >>topic', on another, people are nevertheless >>relating such discussion to the question ?"what >>is Living Economies? - how do these issues >>impact on what develops in the field of >>economy?". >> >> In keeping with the primary aim and intention >>of this group as defined by Christoph in his >>email, then, I expect that the economic focus >>will return. >> >>Were the economic focus to remain secondary for >>'too long', then that would not suit me either. >>This is a very valuable forum for me - my >>primary place for exploring Living Economies >>thought and practice? whereas I hear peak oil, >>climate change and population growth discussion >>everywhere around me. ( though I tend to be >>around such people and tune in to the radio on >>such things) >> >>Also, I haven't seen anywhere where the aims of >>the LE list have been defined and what it is >>that we want to achieve. It may exist somewhere >>but I don't think I received that when I signed >>onto this list heaven's knows how many years >>ago now. Hence what's acceptable and what's not >>is potentially woolly at this point. >> >> What would work for me, my intention for this >>egroup is for... sharing, exploration of ideas >>and practices in the development of Living >>Economies - in a manner that is the most >>expressive of living economies/living systems >>as we can manage at the time. ( ie, the means >>shapes the ends/ being doing yourself as you >>wish the world to be). >> >>Going by a strict interpretation of my criteria >>then, the great deal that is posted here on the >>problems in conventional politics and economics >>are every bit a deviation from topic as climate >>change, peak oil and population growth might >>perhaps be, and in my opinion much more so as >>these later are our present and future >>environment! Trying to be informed of every >>nuance of the conventional system as it >>collapses, reconfigures, melts down, bubbles >>up, implodes, explodes, gets bailed-out... or >>rescued (if you are into Orwellian speak) - its >>all giving an inordinate amount of attention >>and resources to the nearly past, to the >>terminal patient, rather than the struggling >>new-born, who is lying without enough warmth, >>attention and care. >> >>Ella (putting in my two cents worth) >> >> >> >> >>_______________________________________________ >>LE-Members mailing list >>LE-Members at wji.com >>http://list.wji.com/mailman/listinfo/le-members >> >> > >-- >Skype me at: cmhensch >http://cocreate26.blogspot.com > >_______________________________________________ >LE-Members mailing list >LE-Members at wji.com >http://list.wji.com/mailman/listinfo/le-members -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://list.wji.com/pipermail/le-members/attachments/20081009/4471c0c7/attachment-0001.html From baddock at earthlight.co.nz Thu Oct 9 18:34:40 2008 From: baddock at earthlight.co.nz (Al Baddock) Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2008 11:34:40 +1300 Subject: [LE] Refocusing on Economics Discussion? Message-ID: Is it going too far to suggest that this List is an example of such an economy as Christoph identifies - or at least an indicator of where attention could usefully be directed? It seems to me an awful lot of discussion is expended on what's wrong with the dominant conventional economic model when through history it seems the most dramatic advances have come not from pulling down existing models, but building more successful models which displace the old. The internet list model is an example, surely, of an ancient and enduring economic model adapted to contemporary circumstances: a community exchange based on mutual, but self-determined benefit and costs. It is way of trading value "that allows us to leave the current financial system behind, and that is balanced, sustainable and empowering - based on and respecting the living systems of our planet?" - It is open to all to contribute value or draw value from, without regard (in most part) to the financial system, and meets the other criteria Christoph specifies (with the matter of sustainability perhaps requiring some further scrutiny). If the model is before us, the challenge then falls to identifying the essential elements of it - i.e. it's definition. I'd suggest the essence is simplicity. Free participation would seem essential (i.e. free to take part or not as one chooses, albeit there may be practical determinants, such as being able to reach the market, or having nothing to exchange). Equal member ownership is probably a necessary protective element to prevent usurpation, and may be fundamental to Christoph's question as to whether we are paying or giving. I'd suggest in the model we are currently participating in here on this List, we are neither paying nor giving. We are contributing to something in which we have a shared interest, and the returns come in proportion to how successful our collective venture is - just as when we participate in a pot luck dinner with friends. If the collective endeavour proves not to deliver benefits sufficient to balance the contribution we feel we are making, we stop participating. There is no external determinant of what is an adequate return for any individual. Returns need not be defined nor expressed in any specific currency. To increase the value of the returns, each participant has an interest in increasing the net value of the endeavour and thereby an interest in encouraging contributors of real value to participate - thereby self-regulating against damaging, deficient or low value contributions i.e. keeping the economy alive and healthy. I'd suggest the medical maxim "Primum non nocere" is probably the critical missing element from most economic systems and is critical to any truly living economy. (i.e. "First, do no harm."). It also provides probably the only law necessary to police, and protects against those who may look to exploit the returns without contributing. If it does no harm, there's no problem. How much further definition can be sustained without becoming prescriptive and exclusive? - with exclusivity inherently generating negative imperatives. No doubt, others can identify something obvious I have missed. Allan At 9:13 AM +1300 10/10/08, Christoph Hensch wrote: >Well, it seems that we have started a fruitful >discussion towards the meaning of "Living >Economies". For those who wonder about the >primary aim of this list, they may look up the >Mission Statement of the host of the list, the >Living Economies Educational Trust on their >website at >http://www.le.org.nz . > >It says: We are working for healthy economies >for Aotearoa/New Zealand - balanced, sustainable >and empowering - based on and respecting the >living systems of our planet. > >Some of you may also remember that the Living >Economies Trust first saw the light of the day >as 'Stable Money Trust'. Therefore there might >be a slight bias towards issues that have to do >with the money system - mainly the fact that >bank-issued interest-based debt money might be >the core motivation of the worlds economic >behaviour, or as Ella said in her most recent >email: >the interest on money has to be found, which >fuels the need to grow to pay the interest, >which leads to policies and processes of >expansion, consumerism- the need to sell more >and more stuff, built-in obsolescence, >concentration of ownership as companies grow >larger and larger , hence decreased people power >vis a vis corporate power, especially financial >corporate power = all adding up to climate >change and excessive use of oil that wouldn't >otherwise occur. > >Now, based on Living Economies mission >statement, there is no question that the three >'E's of Economy, Ecology and Energy, are >inseparable. In fact, Economy stands for how we >exchange. Living Economies is about the mindset >and the exchange mechanisms we employ (like: Are >we paying for what we are using? Are we gifting >to each other? How much is Nature charging us >what we are taking from her? Have we put systems >into place that fairly attribute costs to users? >Who 'owns' what? Why are we obliged by law to >use some tokens to make payments and pay a heavy >fee (interest) to some big private corporations >(banks) to use those tokens?.... and there are >many more relevant questions that need asking!) > >I repeat: it is about the mindset we employ to >give and receive. For the moment, it is >irrelevant if we apply this mindset to >exchanging wooden toys, barrels of oil or >nuclear bombs. However, once we understand the >mindset we apply, and the systems it has spawned >(like the money system!), and once we've adopted >different ways of doing economics, we will quite >matter of factly abandon the production of >nuclear bombs. Before that can happen we need to >realise though, that we have to let go of many >cherished thoughts and concepts - like the one >of 'The Economy' as we know it. We may simplify >the equation to 'No energy supply = No economy'. >However, that completely disregards every human >effort ever exerted on this planet, be it paid >or unpaid. Maybe one of the first notions we >need to throw over board is that one: Money has >been exchanged for a service or for goods, >therefore 'the economy' has grown and we are all >wealthier. > >Living Economies is about recognizing that there >is more to 'economics' than the conventional >dollar-economy. Way more! Unfortunately we are >so trained to always think in terms of money >(which is only one particular kind of money), >that when this one particular kind of money >experiences a mortal crisis, like now, the only >thing we can think of is how we can 'rescue' the >financial sector and get it all back to normal. >As Kevin quoted (and I absolutely agree): The >suggestion that some deeply unsatisfactory >conditions may not be problems that can be >solved but, rather, are predicaments that must >be lived with, is at once unthinkable and >offensive to a great many people these days. > >Or, as a famous economist once said: "The ideas >which are here expressed so laboriously are >extremely simple and should be obvious. The >difficulty lies not in the new ideas, but in >escaping from the old ones, which ramify, for >those brought up as most of us have been, into >every corner of our minds." - John Maynard >Keynes > >So, to me, the real challenge of the group on >this list is: Are we able to come up with a way >of doing economics that allows us to leave the >current financial system behind, and that is >balanced, sustainable and empowering - based on >and respecting the living systems of our planet? > >Best regards, >Christoph > >*** > > >Ella Linwood wrote: > >>Refocusing on economics discussion? >> >>Christoph wrote: >> >>I'd like to refocus the purpose of this list back to where it originally >>started: looking at economics and money systems. The stated or not >>stated oil reserves of Saudi Arabia are completely irrelevant to this >>list and a red herring to the purpose of what we would like to achieve: >> >>When I read this I experienced a sense of >>relief - of 'Yes? me too - I had thought of >>suggesting the same myself'? and I also >>experience a 'No'. Hang on a minute- >>'completely irrelevant' is too reminiscent of >>the specialised, narrow 'autistic' focus of >>mainstream economics. "The three 'E's of >>Economy, Ecology and Energy, are inseparable." >> >>Christoph's request is the moderator's task of >>recognising and regulating boundary intrusion. >>its my understanding that as all parts of the >>system negotiate semi-permeable boundaries for >>mutual self-interest - then we here, can >>negotiate our self-interest in this. Do we >>agree with Christoph's request (or >>not-negotiable demand) or not? >> >>Personally, I'm fine with keeping going with >>the discussion for longer, maybe a month and >>reassessing. I imagine that even though the >>climate change, peak oil and population >>discussions seem on one level to be 'off >>topic', on another, people are nevertheless >>relating such discussion to the question ?"what >>is Living Economies? - how do these issues >>impact on what develops in the field of >>economy?". >> >> In keeping with the primary aim and intention >>of this group as defined by Christoph in his >>email, then, I expect that the economic focus >>will return. >> >>Were the economic focus to remain secondary for >>'too long', then that would not suit me either. >>This is a very valuable forum for me - my >>primary place for exploring Living Economies >>thought and practice? whereas I hear peak oil, >>climate change and population growth discussion >>everywhere around me. ( though I tend to be >>around such people and tune in to the radio on >>such things) >> >>Also, I haven't seen anywhere where the aims of >>the LE list have been defined and what it is >>that we want to achieve. It may exist somewhere >>but I don't think I received that when I signed >>onto this list heaven's knows how many years >>ago now. Hence what's acceptable and what's not >>is potentially woolly at this point. >> >> What would work for me, my intention for this >>egroup is for... sharing, exploration of ideas >>and practices in the development of Living >>Economies - in a manner that is the most >>expressive of living economies/living systems >>as we can manage at the time. ( ie, the means >>shapes the ends/ being doing yourself as you >>wish the world to be). >> >>Going by a strict interpretation of my criteria >>then, the great deal that is posted here on the >>problems in conventional politics and economics >>are every bit a deviation from topic as climate >>change, peak oil and population growth might >>perhaps be, and in my opinion much more so as >>these later are our present and future >>environment! Trying to be informed of every >>nuance of the conventional system as it >>collapses, reconfigures, melts down, bubbles >>up, implodes, explodes, gets bailed-out... or >>rescued (if you are into Orwellian speak) - its >>all giving an inordinate amount of attention >>and resources to the nearly past, to the >>terminal patient, rather than the struggling >>new-born, who is lying without enough warmth, >>attention and care. >> >>Ella (putting in my two cents worth) >> >> >> >> >>_______________________________________________ >>LE-Members mailing list >>LE-Members at wji.com >>http://list.wji.com/mailman/listinfo/le-members >> >> > >-- >Skype me at: cmhensch >http://cocreate26.blogspot.com > >_______________________________________________ >LE-Members mailing list >LE-Members at wji.com >http://list.wji.com/mailman/listinfo/le-members -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://list.wji.com/pipermail/le-members/attachments/20081009/50e202e1/attachment.html From rafmanji at xtra.co.nz Thu Oct 9 21:47:30 2008 From: rafmanji at xtra.co.nz (Raf Manji) Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2008 14:47:30 +1300 Subject: [LE] Current Situation In-Reply-To: <48ED4054.6060807@gmail.com> Message-ID: Dear All, It's good to see so much debate taking place. The market situation is dire and I cannot see any remedy in the US other than complete nationalisation of the banking system. As anyone who reads my blog knows this is a position which became clear when Northern Rock was nationalised last year. The US bailout plan was pushed through with the threat that if it didn't happen the Dow would fall 2-3000 points. So they knew it was bad but bullied it through. Since then the Dow is down 2200 points and as more and more drecit default swaps get unwound the more it will fall. As we know it is a pure feedback downward spiral. Whilst NZ is avoiding many of the banking problems for now we do not know how it may manifest. Although we can hope for the best (somehow things bottom out and stabilise as they did in Japan) we should prepare for the worst. I'd like to throw out the idea of starting a lobby group, MOVFOR, Movement for Monetary Reform or some such similar group to put together a proposal for how a nationalised system could work here. It would be very focused on the single issue of how money is created and how a new state monetary authority could do this in place of the current system. I have some ideas about this myself (I have been looking at a UBI - somewhat similar to Lowell's from 1998/2000). I do believe that a singular focus on this one issue is what could work. My experience with the EDM in the UK on creating public money confirms this. Any feedback would be appreciated. Kind regards Raf -----Original Message----- From: le-members-bounces at wji.com [mailto:le-members-bounces at wji.com] On Behalf Of Christoph Hensch Sent: Thursday, 9 October 2008 12:21 p.m. To: le-members at list.wji.com Subject: Re: [LE] NZ economic analysis Hi all, as moderator of this list I agree with Stuart. This is not a place for name calling. I also like to remind you that this list is about Living Economies and to discuss economic issues, not about peak oil and how to fix it. Interestingly enough, we are living through the most severe crisis of the financial sector since the great depression, but so far there was very little discussion on how we could fix our economics - Aarons link to that article at http://realitysandwich.com/money_and_crisis_civilization being the notable exception. If we want to really understand what Living Economies is, then we also need to understand that peak oil and climate change are a result of the economics and the money system we've been employing. As this article at realitysandwich.com (who has actually read it?) points out, anything that is being done today only serves to keep the life-devouring machine of the money system going for a bit longer. It is our interest-based bank-money system that brought about peak oil and climate change. It's the cause we need to fix, not the symptoms. (Sorry, I know, some on this list probably don't like to hear this!) I'd like to refocus the purpose of this list back to where it originally started: looking at economics and money systems. The stated or not stated oil reserves of Saudi Arabia are completely irrelevant to this list and a red herring to the purpose of what we would like to achieve: The creation of an economic system that respects the laws of nature and enriches live, not destroys it. Best regards, Christoph Hensch Moderator of this list and Trustee of the Living Economies Educational Trust, New Zealand Stuart Bramhall wrote: > In my view the most productive use of this list is for people to offer > access to research, data and expert opinion on how to interpret the > research and data. I do not find name calling - such as accusing > someone of doomsaying - at all helpful and I find this quite > objectionable. > > --- On *Wed, 8/10/08, Kevin Moore //* wrote: > > From: Kevin Moore > Subject: Re: [LE] NZ economic analysis > To: "Al Baddock" , > "le-members at list.wji.com" > Received: Wednesday, 8 October, 2008, 6:25 PM > > Probably the only terminology that is worth discussing at this > late stage in the game is > ASPO founder Colin Campbell's description peak oil as 'The > greatest discontinuity in > all of human history'. > > If members of this group understand what 'discontinuity' means and > what it implies, > we will have made some progress. > > Kevin > > /Survivors know the truth about energy, food and the environment, > and are preparing for the meltdown.// / > /Perishers don't know the truth, or don't care, and still believe > the system will provide, even as it starts to collapse./ > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Date: Wed, 8 Oct 2008 15:32:02 +1300 > To: le-members at list.wji.com > From: baddock at earthlight.co.nz > Subject: Re: [LE] NZ economic analysis > > Again, I find your use of much terminology is so loose as to rob > it of real meaning Kevin. > Nothing that transpired in 2005 came close to the scale of > collapse you were indicating during 2005. > Personally I require rather more precision in sources or analysis > in order for me to regard them as reliable or useful. If you > don't, that's fine, but it may be related to the difficulty you > identify in persuading people to your view. > > Allan > > > The world as we knew it did indeed end for many people around > the world in 2005. Most of the carnage was well hidden > because the corporate media chose not to report it (of > course). Western economies have been surviving by pushing > increasing numbers of poor people straight off the cliff, > particulalry those living in Africa, Asia and the Caribbean etc. > > The oil supply did indeed peak over 2005-6, just as predicted. > We are now trudging along the bumpy plateau, with all sorts of > scams and energy squandering schemes propping things up in the > short term, whilst making all our problems much worse in the > long term. Such has been the desperation to keep up the > appearance of normality since 2005. > > The extraction data for 2008 will prove very interesting > reading, since Russia seems to have joined the long list of > nations falling off the extraction cliff. > > The fact that there has been a greater delay in the arrival of > the crisis for NZ than some of us thought should be seen as a > great blessing, an opportunity to heed the warnings and > prepare. However, virtually no preparatiosn have been made, > other than by a handful of 'awake' people. The powers that be > have used the past three years to create even more > dysfunction than existed in 2005 and, naturally enough, the > bulk of the population has followed that lead. > > NZ imports 80% of its oil, and I stand by the statement that > if the oil tankers stopped arriving (for whatever reason) the > NZ economy would be in a tailspin in a week and grind to a > near standstill in a month. > > Geochemistry and geophysics will prevail, whatever anyone > might say or think to the contrary. If the meltdown does not > come as quickly as some of us thought, we should be extremely > thankful. > > I suspect we will discover over the next six months how useful > wishful thinking or human ingenuity are in a world of > declining fossil energy supply. > > Regards > > Kevin > > /Survivors know the truth about energy, food and the > environment, and are preparing for the meltdown. / > > /Perishers don't know the truth, or don't care, and still > believe the system will provide, even as it starts to collapse./ > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > -- Skype me at: cmhensch http://cocreate26.blogspot.com _______________________________________________ LE-Members mailing list LE-Members at wji.com http://list.wji.com/mailman/listinfo/le-members __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 3505 (20081008) __________ The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. http://www.eset.com From manning at kapiti.co.nz Thu Oct 9 22:21:15 2008 From: manning at kapiti.co.nz (Lowell Manning) Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2008 15:21:15 +1300 Subject: [LE] Current Situation In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I agree with Raf, I would personally support a "complete" nationalisation, but doubt that it is psychologically possible in US yet. I think in practice it would look more like what the Europeans are doing. The astonishing fact is that a few billion dollars directed to preventing sub-prime default in the first place would have avoided the entire crisis. The banks with government support could easily have withstood a percentage point or two reduction in post sub-prime interest rates: the government, with some thought and maybe a little regulation could have forced that on the banks using interest rate cuts or ceilings on post sub-prime loan interest. But no, that is not how the deregulated "system" was supposed to work. Instead ideology and greed uselessly crashed the "system". That's the criminal bit. Cheers Lowell Manning On 10/10/2008, at 2:47 PM, Raf Manji wrote: > Dear All, > > It's good to see so much debate taking place. > > The market situation is dire and I cannot see any remedy in the US > other > than complete nationalisation of the banking system. > > As anyone who reads my blog knows this is a position which became > clear > when Northern Rock was nationalised last year. > > The US bailout plan was pushed through with the threat that if it > didn't > happen the Dow would fall 2-3000 points. So they knew it was bad but > bullied it through. > > Since then the Dow is down 2200 points and as more and more drecit > default swaps get unwound the more it will fall. As we know it is a > pure > feedback downward spiral. > > Whilst NZ is avoiding many of the banking problems for now we do not > know how it may manifest. > > Although we can hope for the best (somehow things bottom out and > stabilise as they did in Japan) we should prepare for the worst. > > I'd like to throw out the idea of starting a lobby group, MOVFOR, > Movement for Monetary Reform or some such similar group to put > together > a proposal for how a nationalised system could work here. > > It would be very focused on the single issue of how money is > created and > how a new state monetary authority could do this in place of the > current > system. > > I have some ideas about this myself (I have been looking at a UBI - > somewhat similar to Lowell's from 1998/2000). > > I do believe that a singular focus on this one issue is what could > work. > My experience with the EDM in the UK on creating public money confirms > this. > > Any feedback would be appreciated. > > Kind regards > > Raf > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: le-members-bounces at wji.com [mailto:le-members- > bounces at wji.com] On > Behalf Of Christoph Hensch > Sent: Thursday, 9 October 2008 12:21 p.m. > To: le-members at list.wji.com > Subject: Re: [LE] NZ economic analysis > > Hi all, > as moderator of this list I agree with Stuart. This is not a place for > name calling. I also like to remind you that this list is about Living > Economies and to discuss economic issues, not about peak oil and > how to > fix it. Interestingly enough, we are living through the most severe > crisis of the financial sector since the great depression, but so far > there was very little discussion on how we could fix our economics - > Aarons link to that article at > http://realitysandwich.com/money_and_crisis_civilization being the > notable exception. > > If we want to really understand what Living Economies is, then we also > need to understand that peak oil and climate change are a result of > the > economics and the money system we've been employing. As this > article at > realitysandwich.com (who has actually read it?) points out, anything > that is being done today only serves to keep the life-devouring > machine > of the money system going for a bit longer. It is our interest-based > bank-money system that brought about peak oil and climate change. It's > the cause we need to fix, not the symptoms. (Sorry, I know, some on > this > > list probably don't like to hear this!) > > I'd like to refocus the purpose of this list back to where it > originally > > started: looking at economics and money systems. The stated or not > stated oil reserves of Saudi Arabia are completely irrelevant to this > list and a red herring to the purpose of what we would like to > achieve: > The creation of an economic system that respects the laws of nature > and > enriches live, not destroys it. > > Best regards, > > Christoph Hensch > Moderator of this list and > Trustee of the Living Economies Educational Trust, New Zealand > > > > Stuart Bramhall wrote: >> In my view the most productive use of this list is for people to >> offer > >> access to research, data and expert opinion on how to interpret the >> research and data. I do not find name calling - such as accusing >> someone of doomsaying - at all helpful and I find this quite >> objectionable. >> >> --- On *Wed, 8/10/08, Kevin Moore //* >> wrote: >> >> From: Kevin Moore >> Subject: Re: [LE] NZ economic analysis >> To: "Al Baddock" , >> "le-members at list.wji.com" >> Received: Wednesday, 8 October, 2008, 6:25 PM >> >> Probably the only terminology that is worth discussing at this >> late stage in the game is >> ASPO founder Colin Campbell's description peak oil as 'The >> greatest discontinuity in >> all of human history'. >> >> If members of this group understand what 'discontinuity' means >> and >> what it implies, >> we will have made some progress. >> >> Kevin >> >> /Survivors know the truth about energy, food and the environment, >> and are preparing for the meltdown.// / >> /Perishers don't know the truth, or don't care, and still believe >> the system will provide, even as it starts to collapse./ >> >> >> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > -- >> Date: Wed, 8 Oct 2008 15:32:02 +1300 >> To: le-members at list.wji.com >> From: baddock at earthlight.co.nz >> Subject: Re: [LE] NZ economic analysis >> >> Again, I find your use of much terminology is so loose as to rob >> it of real meaning Kevin. >> Nothing that transpired in 2005 came close to the scale of >> collapse you were indicating during 2005. >> Personally I require rather more precision in sources or analysis >> in order for me to regard them as reliable or useful. If you >> don't, that's fine, but it may be related to the difficulty you >> identify in persuading people to your view. >> >> Allan >> >> >> The world as we knew it did indeed end for many people around >> the world in 2005. Most of the carnage was well hidden >> because the corporate media chose not to report it (of >> course). Western economies have been surviving by pushing >> increasing numbers of poor people straight off the cliff, >> particulalry those living in Africa, Asia and the Caribbean > etc. >> >> The oil supply did indeed peak over 2005-6, just as >> predicted. >> We are now trudging along the bumpy plateau, with all >> sorts of >> scams and energy squandering schemes propping things up in >> the >> short term, whilst making all our problems much worse in the >> long term. Such has been the desperation to keep up the >> appearance of normality since 2005. >> >> The extraction data for 2008 will prove very interesting >> reading, since Russia seems to have joined the long list of >> nations falling off the extraction cliff. >> >> The fact that there has been a greater delay in the >> arrival of >> the crisis for NZ than some of us thought should be seen as a >> great blessing, an opportunity to heed the warnings and >> prepare. However, virtually no preparatiosn have been made, >> other than by a handful of 'awake' people. The powers that be >> have used the past three years to create even more >> dysfunction than existed in 2005 and, naturally enough, the >> bulk of the population has followed that lead. >> >> NZ imports 80% of its oil, and I stand by the statement that >> if the oil tankers stopped arriving (for whatever reason) the >> NZ economy would be in a tailspin in a week and grind to a >> near standstill in a month. >> >> Geochemistry and geophysics will prevail, whatever anyone >> might say or think to the contrary. If the meltdown does not >> come as quickly as some of us thought, we should be extremely >> thankful. >> >> I suspect we will discover over the next six months how >> useful >> wishful thinking or human ingenuity are in a world of >> declining fossil energy supply. >> >> Regards >> >> Kevin >> >> /Survivors know the truth about energy, food and the >> environment, and are preparing for the meltdown. / >> >> /Perishers don't know the truth, or don't care, and still >> believe the system will provide, even as it starts to > collapse./ >> >> >> >> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > -- >> > > -- > Skype me at: cmhensch > http://cocreate26.blogspot.com > > _______________________________________________ > LE-Members mailing list > LE-Members at wji.com > http://list.wji.com/mailman/listinfo/le-members > > __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus > signature database 3505 (20081008) __________ > > The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. > > http://www.eset.com > > > _______________________________________________ > LE-Members mailing list > LE-Members at wji.com > http://list.wji.com/mailman/listinfo/le-members From elinwood at westnet.com.au Thu Oct 9 22:17:19 2008 From: elinwood at westnet.com.au (Ella Linwood) Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2008 12:17:19 +1000 Subject: [LE] NVC & Convincing the People that Matter Message-ID: <20081010022158.E911F22F47B@hosted02.westnet.com.au> To Christoph, Allan, I have written here prior to looking at the latest LE posts and am out of time and energy and need to withdraw for a while. ..................... Greg I enjoyed and appreciated your input, and welcome the new territory that you have embarked on. I would be pleased to receive anything more yourself or anyone has to contribute to the subject of how we can get better get our message across . and how to better hear the message of others. It seems to me that feedback of a kind I haven?t seen here before is emerging on this list of late. Some contributors have given responses to Kevin?s posts beginning with Pam - ?I think you should take a bit more positive approach Kevin. Getting stuck in criticism and despair is not going to save the world?. (Pam 23/9) and the last from Greg... 'The quickest way to turn them off is to approach them with those negative feelings (I suspect that this might be your problem Kevin). In terms of Convincing People That Matter, it is my view that such feedback is a step in the direction of helping us to achieve what we cannot do alone. I would guess that it comes from the desire to support each other?s effectiveness and the interests of the group as a whole. Feedback can be given in the form that is expressive of the hierarchical/Power-Over paradigm which forms the basis of our social institutions, (eg the money system). ?Power-over? forms of communication are for example, labelling, judgment, blame, reward, punishment, lecturing, sarcasm, diagnosing, criticism, commands, shoulds, demands, threats etc. As we grew up in this system, despite the very best intentions in the world, the process of giving feedback to anyone at all - let alone in a public forum, can be a dodgy area replete with active landmines. Unless people have natural ability or training in ?Power-with?/Compassionate Communication ? then its perhaps unwise to go there. So this is the paradox ? do we avoid feedback altogether, except as it comes out anyway in provocative labels, brackets, asides and grumpy indirect references . or do we pick our way across the minefield with local guides who know the safe ways to cross, thereby establishing suitable paths that enrich our interacting? I?m for the later. There is too much at stake here to choose the former. Feedback is an important part of boundary regulation and living systems process. If we are to be effective communicators, as individuals and as a group doing something useful in the development of Living Economies resources (as one example of doing something useful)- then just as ?Toastmasters?, have discovered, supportive forms of feedback is essential to our ability to communicate our ideas in a way that works for us and for all who work with us. I have some degree of practice in Non-Violent Communication ?a simple awareness training put together by Marshall Rosenberg. NVC is in synch with the power-together paradigm of Living Economies. I would recommend it to those who are public speakers and writers in particular. However my recommendation comes with the proviso that as a tool it has its limitations and can be used clumsily in a way that others can find irritating, or worse. The primary intention of Non-Violent Communication is to go for Connection rather than to go for Being Right... which engenders Disconnection. In an atmosphere of mutuality, with openness to hear and receive how it is for the other, people reach the preliminary step of becoming emotionally available to take in and process new information. As a guiding path across the mine-field ?YES!, in my opinion Non-Violent Communication helps with about half the job. (The other half I won?t launch into here as this piece from me is already quite long enough). So to finish with something practical and doable, my request then is to ask you Kevin if you would be willing to receive specific feedback from me about your posts here, just as I welcome hearing from you about my own? My feedback would likely include one, two or maybe three practical requests and I wouldn't be available for this for another week or more. If you agree, would you prefer to have the conversation on the LE list, or in private? I hope this hasn't been too much like 'lecturing' rather than a sharing of information (?) cheers, Ella -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://list.wji.com/pipermail/le-members/attachments/20081009/59a1ec6a/attachment.html From kevin_enviro at hotmail.com Thu Oct 9 23:34:22 2008 From: kevin_enviro at hotmail.com (Kevin Moore) Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2008 03:34:22 +0000 Subject: [LE] NVC & Convincing the People that Matter In-Reply-To: <20081010022158.E911F22F47B@hosted02.westnet.com.au> References: <20081010022158.E911F22F47B@hosted02.westnet.com.au> Message-ID: I can asure everyone in this group that the 'let's work together on this problem' approach simply does not work in ther real world. The real world is full of people with massive vested interests, commissions to collect, people who are working rorts. I tried the softly-softly co-operative approach in Manukau for sevreal years running, suggesting all the benefits to the community of setting up a permaculture education centre: 'nobody' was interested. The agenda of the council was set (and presuably still is): build shopping malls and build dwellings for people to rest in betwen bouts of shopping. Build car parks and roads. the more the better. Expand the city as far as possible as quickly as possible The suggestion that car culture and shopping culture was no longer appropriate was totally unconscionable -particulalry to hte construction industry, which rules the roost in the Auckland region. Having fled the insane culture of Manukau, two years ago I had a meeting with the CEO of NPDC, together with the senior policy officers -again working on the basis of 'these are the problems, how can we solve them together'. On that occasion I was assured NPDC was interested in working with me. However, I subsequently discovered the CEO and the management team had no intention whatsoever of workiing together with anyone (other than their 'mates'). The councils plans ( beneficial to hotel owners, Mayor Peter Tennent is a hotelier) had been set in contrete and nothing would budge them. Indeed, the very topic 'Peak Oil' is barred within the walls of NPDC. Peak Oil comes under 'climate change' and is dealt with by an officer who knows nothing about either. The oil industry rules NPDC with an iron fist. It is worth noting that the both CEO and Senior Policy Manager of NPDc have now left NPDC for 'greener pastures!, having recked havoc with New Plymouth community. From what my frenids in other egions tell me, all city and district councils as nearly as bad as one another. I understand that Palmerston North is now $150 million in the red after a out of control spending, Kapiti Coast has moeny for 'buntout pads' but noine ofr community gardens, Nelson City Council wants more roading and art galleries... I would say it's a fair conculsion that the looters and pillagers will continue looting and pillaging for as long as they are able to and we will only be able to make progress after central and local government have more or less totally fallen over. Now when it comes to the general public, as we all know, they are fed a continuous diet of business as usual propaganda (or on a weekly basis in the case of the council -growth in tourism, more people is better, knock down houses and replace them with apartment blocks, cover agricultural land with concrete and asphalt and all the other nonsense of insane mainstream culture). I suspect that the bulk of general public will not respond to the economic emergency until mainstream culture is seen to have failed catastophically i.e. there is no food on the supermarket shelves. It is worth noting that during the latter months of the Second World War people in Holland were eating cats, dogs, sparrows... anything they could find or catch. And when oil or gas are not available, people will be chopping down trees to cook food. I suspect that the most appropriate image we should hold in our minds is that scene from 'Rapa Nui' in which the defeder of the last stand of trees on Easter Island is shoved out of the way so that statue building could continue for one more week. I suspect that we need only examine what is happening in Zimbabwe right now to have a view of our collective future. I would like nothing more than to be proven wrong. Regards Kevin Survivors know the truth about energy, food and the environment, and are preparing for the meltdown. Perishers don't know the truth, or don't care, and still believe the system will provide, even as it starts to collapse. Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2008 12:17:19 +1000To: le-members at list.wji.comFrom: elinwood at westnet.com.auSubject: [LE] NVC & Convincing the People that MatterTo Christoph, Allan, I have written here prior to looking at the latest LE posts and am out of time and energy and need to withdraw for a while. .....................Greg I enjoyed and appreciated your input, and welcome the new territory that you have embarked on. I would be pleased to receive anything more yourself or anyone has to contribute to the subject of how we can get better get our message across?. and how to better hear the message of others. It seems to me that feedback of a kind I haven?t seen here before is emerging on this list of late. Some contributors have given responses to Kevin?s posts beginning with Pam - ?I think you should take a bit more positive approach Kevin. Getting stuck in criticism and despair is not going to save the world?. (Pam 23/9) and the last from Greg... 'The quickest way to turn them off is to approach them with those negative feelings (I suspect that this might be your problem Kevin). In terms of Convincing People That Matter, it is my view that such feedback is a step in the direction of helping us to achieve what we cannot do alone. I would guess that it comes from the desire to support each other?s effectiveness and the interests of the group as a whole. Feedback can be given in the form that is expressive of the hierarchical/Power-Over paradigm which forms the basis of our social institutions, (eg the money system). ?Power-over? forms of communication are for example, labelling, judgment, blame, reward, punishment, lecturing, sarcasm, diagnosing, criticism, commands, shoulds, demands, threats etc. As we grew up in this system, despite the very best intentions in the world, the process of giving feedback to anyone at all - let alone in a public forum, can be a dodgy area replete with active landmines. Unless people have natural ability or training in ?Power-with?/Compassionate Communication ? then its perhaps unwise to go there. So this is the paradox ? do we avoid feedback altogether, except as it comes out anyway in provocative labels, brackets, asides and grumpy indirect references?. or do we pick our way across the minefield with local guides who know the safe ways to cross, thereby establishing suitable paths that enrich our interacting? I?m for the later. There is too much at stake here to choose the former. Feedback is an important part of boundary regulation and living systems process. If we are to be effective communicators, as individuals and as a group doing something useful in the development of Living Economies resources (as one example of doing something useful)- then just as ?Toastmasters?, have discovered, supportive forms of feedback is essential to our ability to communicate our ideas in a way that works for us and for all who work with us. I have some degree of practice in Non-Violent Communication ?a simple awareness training put together by Marshall Rosenberg. NVC is in synch with the power-together paradigm of Living Economies. I would recommend it to those who are public speakers and writers in particular. However my recommendation comes with the proviso that as a tool it has its limitations and can be used clumsily? in a way that others can find irritating, or worse. The primary intention of Non-Violent Communication is to go for Connection rather than to go for Being Right... which engenders Disconnection. In an atmosphere of mutuality, with openness to hear and receive how it is for the other, people reach the preliminary step of becoming emotionally available to take in and process new information. As a guiding path across the mine-field ?YES!, in my opinion Non-Violent Communication helps with about half the job. (The other half I won?t launch into here as this piece from me is already quite long enough). So to finish with something practical and doable, my request then is to ask you Kevin if you would be willing to receive specific feedback from me about your posts here, just as I welcome hearing from you about my own? My feedback would likely include one, two or maybe three practical requests and I wouldn't be available for this for another week or more. If you agree, would you prefer to have the conversation on the LE list, or in private? I hope this hasn't been too much like 'lecturing' rather than a sharing of information (?) cheers,Ella _________________________________________________________________ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://list.wji.com/pipermail/le-members/attachments/20081009/4e01c37e/attachment-0001.html From elinwood at westnet.com.au Thu Oct 9 23:36:29 2008 From: elinwood at westnet.com.au (Ella Linwood) Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2008 13:36:29 +1000 Subject: [LE] For a laugh! Bank trouble in Japan Message-ID: <20081010033630.F087D3DBB63@hosted04.westnet.com.au> >on the lighter side... >>Following the problems in the sub-prime lending market in America and the >> >>run on Northern Rock in the UK, uncertainty has now hit Japan. >> >>In the last 7 days the Origami Bank has folded, the Sumo Bank has gone belly >> >>up and the Bonsai Bank announced plans to cut some of its branches. >> >>Yesterday, it was announced that the Karaoke Bank is up for sale and will >> >>likely go for a song, while today shares in the Kamikaze Bank were suspended >> >>after they nose-dived. >> >>While the Samurai Bank is soldiering on following sharp cutbacks, the Ninja >> >>Bank is reported to have taken a hit, but they remain in the black. >> >>Furthermore, 500 staff at the Karate Bank got the chop and analysts report >> >>that there is something fishy going on at the Sushi Bank where it is feared >> >>that staff may get a raw deal. >> >> And more seriously- 'What is the crime of robbing a bank compared with the crime of founding one?' -- Bertolt Brecht -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://list.wji.com/pipermail/le-members/attachments/20081009/fa903f42/attachment.html From rafmanji at xtra.co.nz Fri Oct 10 00:31:14 2008 From: rafmanji at xtra.co.nz (Raf Manji) Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2008 17:31:14 +1300 Subject: [LE] NVC & Convincing the People that Matter In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <76C36AB93FE943D180CF350733B345A9@Office> Kevin, I'd probably agree with you there. However, it is easier if you have a specific proposal to offer. I have just had a paper on climate change published in "The Environmentalist" in the UK which is the IEMA publication. It's not about anything to do with the science, just a proposal on how to deal with it. It was the same with the public money EDM in the UK. I simply suggested, back in 2001, that we cover the PSBR (which was 3bln that year) by creating it directly. It wasn't an argument about 400 years of dodgy banking or whatever. It was just a simple practical proposal that has to be countered on its merits. It may receive a bit more attention now. Timing is also an issue as well as immediate benefits and marketing of the proposal. Now is the time without doubt to present practical solutions for the money system. Regards Raf ) -----Original Message----- From: le-members-bounces at wji.com [mailto:le-members-bounces at wji.com] On Behalf Of Kevin Moore Sent: Friday, 10 October 2008 4:34 p.m. To: Ella Linwood; le-members at list.wji.com Subject: Re: [LE] NVC & Convincing the People that Matter I can asure everyone in this group that the 'let's work together on this problem' approach simply does not work in ther real world. The real world is full of people with massive vested interests, commissions to collect, people who are working rorts. I tried the softly-softly co-operative approach in Manukau for sevreal years running, suggesting all the benefits to the community of setting up a permaculture education centre: 'nobody' was interested. The agenda of the council was set (and presuably still is): build shopping malls and build dwellings for people to rest in betwen bouts of shopping. Build car parks and roads. the more the better. Expand the city as far as possible as quickly as possible The suggestion that car culture and shopping culture was no longer appropriate was totally unconscionable -particulalry to hte construction industry, which rules the roost in the Auckland region. Having fled the insane culture of Manukau, two years ago I had a meeting with the CEO of NPDC, together with the senior policy officers -again working on the basis of 'these are the problems, how can we solve them together'. On that occasion I was assured NPDC was interested in working with me. However, I subsequently discovered the CEO and the management team had no intention whatsoever of workiing together with anyone (other than their 'mates'). The councils plans ( beneficial to hotel owners, Mayor Peter Tennent is a hotelier) had been set in contrete and nothing would budge them. Indeed, the very topic 'Peak Oil' is barred within the walls of NPDC. Peak Oil comes under 'climate change' and is dealt with by an officer who knows nothing about either. The oil industry rules NPDC with an iron fist. It is worth noting that the both CEO and Senior Policy Manager of NPDc have now left NPDC for 'greener pastures!, having recked havoc with New Plymouth community. From what my frenids in other egions tell me, all city and district councils as nearly as bad as one another. I understand that Palmerston North is now $150 million in the red after a out of control spending, Kapiti Coast has moeny for 'buntout pads' but noine ofr community gardens, Nelson City Council wants more roading and art galleries... I would say it's a fair conculsion that the looters and pillagers will continue looting and pillaging for as long as they are able to and we will only be able to make progress after central and local government have more or less totally fallen over. Now when it comes to the general public, as we all know, they are fed a continuous diet of business as usual propaganda (or on a weekly basis in the case of the council -growth in tourism, more people is better, knock down houses and replace them with apartment blocks, cover agricultural land with concrete and asphalt and all the other nonsense of insane mainstream culture). I suspect that the bulk of general public will not respond to the economic emergency until mainstream culture is seen to have failed catastophically i.e. there is no food on the supermarket shelves. It is worth noting that during the latter months of the Second World War people in Holland were eating cats, dogs, sparrows... anything they could find or catch. And when oil or gas are not available, people will be chopping down trees to cook food. I suspect that the most appropriate image we should hold in our minds is that scene from 'Rapa Nui' in which the defeder of the last stand of trees on Easter Island is shoved out of the way so that statue building could continue for one more week. I suspect that we need only examine what is happening in Zimbabwe right now to have a view of our collective future. I would like nothing more than to be proven wrong. Regards Kevin Survivors know the truth about energy, food and the environment, and are preparing for the meltdown. Perishers don't know the truth, or don't care, and still believe the system will provide, even as it starts to collapse. _____ Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2008 12:17:19 +1000 To: le-members at list.wji.com From: elinwood at westnet.com.au Subject: [LE] NVC & Convincing the People that Matter To Christoph, Allan, I have written here prior to looking at the latest LE posts and am out of time and energy and need to withdraw for a while. ..................... Greg I enjoyed and appreciated your input, and welcome the new territory that you have embarked on. I would be pleased to receive anything more yourself or anyone has to contribute to the subject of how we can get better get our message across.. and how to better hear the message of others. It seems to me that feedback of a kind I haven't seen here before is emerging on this list of late. Some contributors have given responses to Kevin's posts beginning with Pam - "I think you should take a bit more positive approach Kevin. Getting stuck in criticism and despair is not going to save the world". (Pam 23/9) and the last from Greg... 'The quickest way to turn them off is to approach them with those negative feelings (I suspect that this might be your problem Kevin). In terms of Convincing People That Matter, it is my view that such feedback is a step in the direction of helping us to achieve what we cannot do alone. I would guess that it comes from the desire to support each other's effectiveness and the interests of the group as a whole. Feedback can be given in the form that is expressive of the hierarchical/Power-Over paradigm which forms the basis of our social institutions, (eg the money system). 'Power-over' forms of communication are for example, labelling, judgment, blame, reward, punishment, lecturing, sarcasm, diagnosing, criticism, commands, shoulds, demands, threats etc. As we grew up in this system, despite the very best intentions in the world, the process of giving feedback to anyone at all - let alone in a public forum, can be a dodgy area replete with active landmines. Unless people have natural ability or training in 'Power-with'/Compassionate Communication - then its perhaps unwise to go there. So this is the paradox - do we avoid feedback altogether, except as it comes out anyway in provocative labels, brackets, asides and grumpy indirect references.. or do we pick our way across the minefield with local guides who know the safe ways to cross, thereby establishing suitable paths that enrich our interacting? I'm for the later. There is too much at stake here to choose the former. Feedback is an important part of boundary regulation and living systems process. If we are to be effective communicators, as individuals and as a group doing something useful in the development of Living Economies resources (as one example of doing something useful)- then just as 'Toastmasters', have discovered, supportive forms of feedback is essential to our ability to communicate our ideas in a way that works for us and for all who work with us. I have some degree of practice in Non-Violent Communication -a simple awareness training put together by Marshall Rosenberg. NVC is in synch with the power-together paradigm of Living Economies. I would recommend it to those who are public speakers and writers in particular. However my recommendation comes with the proviso that as a tool it has its limitations and can be used clumsily. in a way that others can find irritating, or worse. The primary intention of Non-Violent Communication is to go for Connection rather than to go for Being Right... which engenders Disconnection. In an atmosphere of mutuality, with openness to hear and receive how it is for the other, people reach the preliminary step of becoming emotionally available to take in and process new information. As a guiding path across the mine-field -YES!, in my opinion Non-Violent Communication helps with about half the job. (The other half I won't launch into here as this piece from me is already quite long enough). So to finish with something practical and doable, my request then is to ask you Kevin if you would be willing to receive specific feedback from me about your posts here, just as I welcome hearing from you about my own? My feedback would likely include one, two or maybe three practical requests and I wouldn't be available for this for another week or more. If you agree, would you prefer to have the conversation on the LE list, or in private? I hope this hasn't been too much like 'lecturing' rather than a sharing of information (?) cheers, Ella _____ __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 3509 (20081009) __________ The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. http://www.eset.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://list.wji.com/pipermail/le-members/attachments/20081010/6d988039/attachment-0001.html From mig at olccjp.net Fri Oct 10 00:32:04 2008 From: mig at olccjp.net (Miguel Yasuyuki Hirota) Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2008 13:32:04 +0900 Subject: [LE] For a laugh! Bank trouble in Japan In-Reply-To: <20081010033630.F087D3DBB63@hosted04.westnet.com.au> References: <20081010033630.F087D3DBB63@hosted04.westnet.com.au> Message-ID: <48EEDAC4.9080200@olccjp.net> Thank you, Ella, for this joke. As a native of Japan I really liked it... Today (Friday) a Japanese insurance company (Yamato Life Insurance) went bankrupt. Japan has been so far relatively little affected by this financial crisis because of investors' reluctance to put their money abroad, but I don't think Japanese financial market can get rid of this chaos any sooner than other ones in the world... http://www.yamato-life.co.jp/ Best regards, Miguel from Fukuoka, Japan (between Hiroshima and Nagasaki) Ella Linwood wrote: >> on the lighter side... > >>> Following the problems in the sub-prime lending market in America and the >>> >>> run on Northern Rock in the UK, uncertainty has now hit Japan. >>> >>> In the last 7 days the Origami Bank has folded, the Sumo Bank has gone belly >>> >>> up and the Bonsai Bank announced plans to cut some of its branches. >>> >>> Yesterday, it was announced that the Karaoke Bank is up for sale and will >>> >>> likely go for a song, while today shares in the Kamikaze Bank were suspended >>> >>> after they nose-dived. >>> >>> While the Samurai Bank is soldiering on following sharp cutbacks, the Ninja >>> >>> Bank is reported to have taken a hit, but they remain in the black. >>> >>> Furthermore, 500 staff at the Karate Bank got the chop and analysts report >>> >>> that there is something fishy going on at the Sushi Bank where it is feared >>> >>> that staff may get a raw deal. >>> >>> > And more seriously- > > 'What is the crime of robbing a bank compared with the crime of founding one?' -- Bertolt Brecht > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > LE-Members mailing list > LE-Members at wji.com > http://list.wji.com/mailman/listinfo/le-members From kevin_enviro at hotmail.com Fri Oct 10 15:44:49 2008 From: kevin_enviro at hotmail.com (Kevin Moore) Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2008 19:44:49 +0000 Subject: [LE] Convincing the people that matter Message-ID: I'd like to remind everyone that according the reworked calculations of Jim Hansen's NASA team (arguably at the forefront of climate change science) we are already in severe overshoot on CO2 and need to get the atmosphere stabilised at below 350ppm. (The historical level that allowed civilisation to flourish was around 280ppm, in case anyone has forgotten) The implications for any future society that fails to stop burning fossil fuels or fails to take drastic measures to correct the atmospheric imbalance are all to obvious. I believe any discussion about Living Economies that does not take into account scientific realities is pointless. 'What we have found is that the target we have all been aiming for is a disaster - a guaranteed disaster," Hansen told the Guardian. At levels as high as 550ppm, the world would warm by 6C.." I have been criticised to not providing 'hope' to the the general population. I believe the only hope we can offer them at this late stage in the game is that if they bring down the present [corrupt] economic and political system their children may have a planet that may be something like normal to live on. However, I am realisitc enough to know that will it [voluntary abandonment of present day consumerism] never happen. No insult intended, but I doubt that many people on the LE list are really up with the play on climate change, let alone the generally totally uninformed or misinformed public. My only contention with Hansen is his promotion of 'carbon sequestration', which as far as I am concerned is nothing other than a business as usual scam. Carbon cannot be 'sequestered'. The closest thing we have to sequestered carbon is coal, which global corporations and politiicans cannot get out of the ground and burnt fast enough! Article below Kind regards Kevin The following correction was printed in the Guardian's Corrections and clarifications column, Thursday April 10 2008 The report about the need to reduce CO2 limits that James Hansen, head of the Nasa Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York, co-authored with eight other climate scientists is posted on the arXiv.org website - not the Archive website as we said in the article below. This has been corrected. One of the world's leading climate scientists warns today that the EU and its international partners must urgently rethink targets for cutting carbon dioxide in the atmosphere because of fears they have grossly underestimated the scale of the problem. In a startling reappraisal of the threat, James Hansen, head of the Nasa Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York, calls for a sharp reduction in C02 limits. Hansen says the EU target of 550 parts per million of C02 - the most stringent in the world - should be slashed to 350ppm. He argues the cut is needed if "humanity wishes to preserve a planet similar to that on which civilisation developed". A final version of the paper Hansen co-authored with eight other climate scientists, is posted today on the arXiv.org website. Instead of using theoretical models to estimate the sensitivity of the climate, his team turned to evidence from the Earth's history, which they say gives a much more accurate picture. The team studied core samples taken from the bottom of the ocean, which allow C02 levels to be tracked millions of years ago. They show that when the world began to glaciate at the start of the Ice age about 35m years ago, the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere stood at about 450ppm. "If you leave us at 450ppm for long enough it will probably melt all the ice - that's a sea rise of 75 metres. What we have found is that the target we have all been aiming for is a disaster - a guaranteed disaster," Hansen told the Guardian. At levels as high as 550ppm, the world would warm by 6C, the paper finds. Previous estimates had suggested warming would be just 3C at that point. Hansen has long been a prominent figure in climate change science. He was one of the first to bring the crisis to the world's attention in testimony to Congress in the 1980s. But his relationship with the Bush administration has been frosty. In 2005 he accused the White House and Nasa of trying to censor him. He has steadily revised his analysis of the scale of the global warming and was himself one of the architects of a 450ppm target. But he told the Guardian: "I realise that was too high." The fundamental reason for his reassessment was what he calls "slow feedback" mechanisms which are only now becoming fully understood. They amplify the rise in temperature caused by increasing the concentration of greenhouse gases. Ice and snow reflect sunlight but when they melt, they leave exposed ground which absorbs more heat. As ice sheets recede, the warming effect is compounded. Satellite technology available over the past three years has shown that the ice sheets are melting much faster than expected, with Greenland and west Antarctica both losing mass. Hansen said that he now regards as "implausible" the view of many climate scientists that the shrinking of the ice sheets would take thousands of years. "If we follow business as usual I can't see how west Antarctica could survive a century. We are talking about a sea-level rise of at least a couple of metres this century." The revised target is likely to prompt criticism that he is setting the bar unrealistically high. With the US administration still acting as a drag on international efforts, climate campaigners are struggling even to get a 450ppm target to stick. Hansen said his findings were not a recipe for despair. The good news, he said, is that reserves of fossil fuels have been exaggerated, so an alternative source of energy will have to be rapidly put in place in any case. Other measure could include a moratorium on coal power stations which would bring the C02 levels to below 400ppm. Hansen's revised position will pile yet further pressure on Britain over plans to build a new generation of coal power stations. Last year he wrote to Gordon Brown urging him to block the first such power station; the Royal Society has made similar suggestions to the government. Survivors know the truth about energy, food and the environment, and are preparing for the meltdown. Perishers don't know the truth, or don't care, and still believe the system will provide, even as it starts to collapse. _________________________________________________________________ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://list.wji.com/pipermail/le-members/attachments/20081010/1de4985d/attachment.html From cmhensch at gmail.com Fri Oct 10 22:46:54 2008 From: cmhensch at gmail.com (Christoph Hensch) Date: Sat, 11 Oct 2008 15:46:54 +1300 Subject: [LE] Convincing the people that matter In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Dear Kevin, I don't think anyone here doubts the seriousness of the state of the planet in terms of climate change. Believe me, I don't need any reminding. I wonder, though, if beyond the peak oil and climate change science, do you have any ideas of how to change and improve our economics to counter the trend of where the planet is going? Are you aware of how fundamental the economic imperative is in human behaviour? As you seem to never be tired to point out yourself: NOW would be the time to come forward with some ECONOMIC solutions that actually would let humanity change course. Do YOU have any ideas? Any contribution into THAT DIRECTION would be highly appreciated! Best regards, Christoph *** On Sat, Oct 11, 2008 at 8:44 AM, Kevin Moore wrote: > I'd like to remind everyone that according the reworked calculations of > Jim Hansen's NASA team (arguably at the forefront of climate change science) > we are already in severe overshoot on CO2 and need to get the atmosphere > stabilised at below 350ppm. > (The historical level that allowed civilisation to flourish was > around 280ppm, in case anyone has forgotten) > > The implications for any future society that fails to stop burning fossil > fuels or fails to take drastic measures to correct the atmospheric imbalance > are all to obvious. > > I believe any discussion about Living Economies that does not take into > account scientific realities is pointless. > > *'What we have found is that the target we have all been aiming for is a > disaster - a guaranteed disaster," Hansen told the Guardian.* > ** > *At levels as high as 550ppm, the world would warm by 6C.."* > > I have been criticised to not providing 'hope' to the the general > population. I believe the only hope we can offer them at this late stage in > the game is that if they bring down the present [corrupt] economic and > political system their children may have a planet that may be something like > normal to live on. However, I am realisitc enough to know that will it > [voluntary abandonment of present day consumerism] never happen. > > No insult intended, but I doubt that many people on the LE list are really > up with the play on climate change, let alone the generally totally > uninformed or misinformed public. > > My only contention with Hansen is his promotion of 'carbon sequestration', > which as far as I am concerned is nothing other than a business as usual > scam. Carbon cannot be 'sequestered'. The closest thing we have to > sequestered carbon is coal, which global corporations and politiicans cannot > get out of the ground and burnt fast enough! > > Article below > > Kind regards > > Kevin > > *The following correction was printed in the Guardian's Corrections and > clarifications column, Thursday April 10 2008* > The report about the need to reduce CO2 limits that James Hansen, head of > the Nasa Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York, co-authored with > eight other climate scientists is posted on the arXiv.org website - not the > Archive website as we said in the article below. This has been corrected. > ------------------------------ > > > One of the world's leading climate scientists warns today that the EU and > its international partners must urgently rethink targets for cutting carbon > dioxide in the atmosphere because of fears they have grossly underestimated > the scale of the problem. > In a startling reappraisal of the threat, James Hansen, head of the Nasa > Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York, calls for a sharp reduction > in C02 limits. > Hansen says the EU target of 550 parts per million of C02 - the most > stringent in the world - should be slashed to 350ppm. He argues the cut is > needed if "humanity wishes to preserve a planet similar to that on which > civilisation developed". A final version of the paper Hansen co-authored > with eight other climate scientists, is posted today on the arXiv.orgwebsite. Instead of using theoretical models to estimate the sensitivity of > the climate, his team turned to evidence from the Earth's history, which > they say gives a much more accurate picture. > The team studied core samples taken from the bottom of the ocean, which > allow C02 levels to be tracked millions of years ago. They show that when > the world began to glaciate at the start of the Ice age about 35m years ago, > the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere stood at about 450ppm. > "If you leave us at 450ppm for long enough it will probably melt all the > ice - that's a sea rise of 75 metres. What we have found is that the target > we have all been aiming for is a disaster - a guaranteed disaster," Hansen > told the Guardian. > At levels as high as 550ppm, the world would warm by 6C, the paper finds. > Previous estimates had suggested warming would be just 3C at that point. > Hansen has long been a prominent figure in climate change science. He was > one of the first to bring the crisis to the world's attention in testimony > to Congress in the 1980s. > But his relationship with the Bush administration has been frosty. In 2005 > he accused the White House and Nasa of trying to censor him. He has steadily > revised his analysis of the scale of the global warming and was himself one > of the architects of a 450ppm target. But he told the Guardian: "I realise > that was too high." > The fundamental reason for his reassessment was what he calls "slow > feedback" mechanisms which are only now becoming fully understood. They > amplify the rise in temperature caused by increasing the concentration of > greenhouse gases. Ice and snow reflect sunlight but when they melt, they > leave exposed ground which absorbs more heat. > As ice sheets recede, the warming effect is compounded. Satellite > technology available over the past three years has shown that the ice sheets > are melting much faster than expected, with Greenland and west Antarctica > both losing mass. > Hansen said that he now regards as "implausible" the view of many climate > scientists that the shrinking of the ice sheets would take thousands of > years. "If we follow business as usual I can't see how west Antarctica could > survive a century. We are talking about a sea-level rise of at least a > couple of metres this century." > The revised target is likely to prompt criticism that he is setting the bar > unrealistically high. With the US administration still acting as a drag on > international efforts, climate campaigners are struggling even to get a > 450ppm target to stick. > Hansen said his findings were not a recipe for despair. The good news, he > said, is that reserves of fossil fuels have been exaggerated, so an > alternative source of energy will have to be rapidly put in place in any > case. Other measure could include a moratorium on coal power stations which > would bring the C02 levels to below 400ppm. > Hansen's revised position will pile yet further pressure on Britain over > plans to build a new generation of coal power stations. Last year he wrote > to Gordon Brown urging him to block the first such power station; the Royal > Society has made similar suggestions to the government. > > > > *Survivors know the truth about energy, food and the environment, and are > preparing for the meltdown.** * > *Perishers don't know the truth, or don't care, and still believe the > system will provide, even as it starts to collapse.* > > > > ------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > LE-Members mailing list > LE-Members at wji.com > http://list.wji.com/mailman/listinfo/le-members > > -- skype me at: cmhensch http://cocreate26.blogspot.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://list.wji.com/pipermail/le-members/attachments/20081010/83ff8c30/attachment-0001.html From kmpeet at gmail.com Fri Oct 10 22:59:33 2008 From: kmpeet at gmail.com (Katherine Peet) Date: Sat, 11 Oct 2008 15:59:33 +1300 Subject: [LE] Convincing the people that matter In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Dear Christoph and ?? re your comment NOW would be the time to come forward with some ECONOMIC solutions that actually would let humanity change course. Do YOU have any ideas? Any contribution into THAT DIRECTION would be highly appreciated! Fiscally neutral eco taxes (as per John Peet's input into the Musical Chairs seminar earlier this year) would fit this category of ideas. Katherine 2008/10/11 Christoph Hensch > Dear Kevin, > I don't think anyone here doubts the seriousness of the state of the planet > in terms of climate change. Believe me, I don't need any reminding. I > wonder, though, if beyond the peak oil and climate change science, do you > have any ideas of how to change and improve our economics to counter the > trend of where the planet is going? > > Are you aware of how fundamental the economic imperative is in human > behaviour? As you seem to never be tired to point out yourself: NOW would be > the time to come forward with some ECONOMIC solutions that actually would > let humanity change course. Do YOU have any ideas? Any contribution into > THAT DIRECTION would be highly appreciated! > > Best regards, > Christoph > > *** > > On Sat, Oct 11, 2008 at 8:44 AM, Kevin Moore wrote: > >> I'd like to remind everyone that according the reworked calculations of >> Jim Hansen's NASA team (arguably at the forefront of climate change science) >> we are already in severe overshoot on CO2 and need to get the atmosphere >> stabilised at below 350ppm. >> (The historical level that allowed civilisation to flourish was >> around 280ppm, in case anyone has forgotten) >> >> The implications for any future society that fails to stop burning fossil >> fuels or fails to take drastic measures to correct the atmospheric imbalance >> are all to obvious. >> >> I believe any discussion about Living Economies that does not take into >> account scientific realities is pointless. >> >> *'What we have found is that the target we have all been aiming for is a >> disaster - a guaranteed disaster," Hansen told the Guardian.* >> ** >> *At levels as high as 550ppm, the world would warm by 6C.."* >> >> I have been criticised to not providing 'hope' to the the general >> population. I believe the only hope we can offer them at this late stage in >> the game is that if they bring down the present [corrupt] economic and >> political system their children may have a planet that may be something like >> normal to live on. However, I am realisitc enough to know that will it >> [voluntary abandonment of present day consumerism] never happen. >> >> No insult intended, but I doubt that many people on the LE list are really >> up with the play on climate change, let alone the generally totally >> uninformed or misinformed public. >> >> My only contention with Hansen is his promotion of 'carbon sequestration', >> which as far as I am concerned is nothing other than a business as usual >> scam. Carbon cannot be 'sequestered'. The closest thing we have to >> sequestered carbon is coal, which global corporations and politiicans cannot >> get out of the ground and burnt fast enough! >> >> Article below >> >> Kind regards >> >> Kevin >> >> *The following correction was printed in the Guardian's Corrections and >> clarifications column, Thursday April 10 2008* >> The report about the need to reduce CO2 limits that James Hansen, head of >> the Nasa Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York, co-authored with >> eight other climate scientists is posted on the arXiv.org website - not the >> Archive website as we said in the article below. This has been corrected. >> -------------------