next message in archive
no next message in thread
previous message in archive
Index of Subjects
Patrick Kelly wrote:
> Coming from a background in astronomy I tend to be of the opinion that
> I would rather err on the side of caution when the sustainability of
> my home world is concerned. The current best thought is that planets
> like the Earth are rare, and intelligent life even rarer, (I highly
> recommend Rare Earth: Why Complex Life is Uncommon in the Universe by
> Peter Ward, Donald Brownlee) It is quite unlikely that anyone else is
> going to show up to save us.
>
Hi Patrick & All, Nov 24, 2006
Quite some time ago, well before high school in the late 1940's, I
concluded that the earth was finite, that the range of human greed
extended well beyond colossal, that frogs do not grow in parking lots,
that the budding postwar consumer society would become a monster and,
from all this and much more, resolved to build my lifestyle around
minimum consumption. This involved thousands of small choices like
saving old nails for reuse and some larger choices like living within
walking distance of work.
Over the last 5-6 decades the reasons for adopting a minimum
consumption lifestyle have become more evident, even if possible
greenhouse effects are excluded from consideration, but it has become
increasingly difficult to do so as communities are structured around the
automobile and goods are designed to wear out quickly. So where does
this preamble lead ?
There are lots of down to earth problems such as adverse health
effects of air pollution and the looming mismatch between community
structures and rising gasoline prices that can be used to encourage
actions that lead to reduced CO2 emissions. Immediate problems of this
type are more likely to resonate with the average voter, whose top
problem is along the lines of how to make some payment on last month's
power bill, than possible problems that may oir may not develop in some
distant future.
If the greenhouse effect turns out to be a genuine threat then
these actions will have reduced the magnitude of this threat. If the
greenhouse effect turns out to be a paper tiger then these actions will
in any case have reduced genuine problems.
Whatever happens, one can rule out government leadership as a force
for desirable change; e.g. Digby wharf mismanagement and gasoline price
control. If people are provided with sound information, as opposed to
urban myths and commercial propaganda, then I am confident that they
will eventually make sound choices.
Yours truly, Dave Webster, Kentville
next message in archive
no next message in thread
previous message in archive
Index of Subjects