Comments on: Structural Change to Stop Climate Change

By: Rebecca B.

Rebecca B. — Mon, 09 Mar 2009 02:08:27 +0000

Lemuria - I would challenge your position on cities. What do you envision as an alternative? Though they do rely on imports, they also concentrate large numbers of people in a single place, which is preferable to unending suburban sprawl. Also, in cities people are generally more interested in having public transportation - in some ways, cities are the best place to begin thinking about these structural changes.

By: Dan

Dan — Thu, 05 Mar 2009 05:53:47 +0000

Hey Jon,
Great work as usual. Stumbled across this delicious piece in the Times today. Good to know Ebay is doing their part! My favorite line is from the RAN guy "let’s not get carried away and say this (Ebay) is the greenest thing since recycled paper.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/04/business/media/04adco.html?_r=1&scp=2&sq=ebay&st=Search
Oh Jesus! Good old Earth Day...Have a splendid break.

By: Jane Mercaldi

Jane Mercaldi — Thu, 05 Mar 2009 00:50:24 +0000

If we had only listened to Helen Nearing!
Helen Nearing, "Living the Good Life" 1954.
Chapter 6:
"..seven procedures which will maximize the stability and security of livelihood:
First, regulating the sources of livelihood in such a manner that all able bodied adults will render a service in exchange for income, thus eliminating the social divisions which develop when a part of the community lives on unearned income while the remainder exchanges labor power for its livelihood.
Sixth, practice economy, conserving resources, producing and consuming as little as necessary rather than as much as possible"

By: Noah C

Noah C — Wed, 04 Mar 2009 02:19:05 +0000

Well said Jonathan, and Lemuria, I couldn't have said it better myself. Great piece!

By: Lemuria Mu

Lemuria Mu — Wed, 04 Mar 2009 00:10:37 +0000

Cities are inherently unsustainable because they rely on imports. No place for them in a post-carbon world. Obviously this is bad news for the urban poor.
With all due respect Mr. Smith I think you really missed Jon's point. In 50 years it won't make any difference whether we recycled or not, pulled down our shades, drove a Hummer or bought organic. None of these lifestyle changes address the critical reality that our way of life--industrialism/mass society--is not sustainable. The earth cannot take it much longer.
This whole deal is going to stop working in our lifetimes, the only question is how difficult we want t0 make that inevitable transition.

By: Roger Smith

Roger Smith — Tue, 03 Mar 2009 23:13:19 +0000

Transportation and building energy use are responsible for the vast majority of US global warming emissions (and in CT are well over 80% of the problem).

The "structural" change we need will put mandatory limits on CO2 emissions and change how we live, how we use energy, and how we move around. What we can do is change the choices that people have today.

On the building side that can look like incentive programs for efficiency and renewable energy (like solar electricity and hot water), education on how to cut energy use (pull down shades, how to use a programmable thermostat), economic incentives (tiered pricing where the more energy you use, the higher the rate you pay), and regulations requiring increases in product efficiency, mandates that buildings be built or renovated to an efficient standard, and eventually even be required to incorporate renewable energy sources (as Hawaii is doing now for solar hot water heating).

Ultimately a combination of mandates and incentives will transform how we use and think about energy. If done right our children will wonder how we ever lived differently.

By: Andrew Dominguez

Andrew Dominguez — Tue, 03 Mar 2009 23:00:29 +0000

A couple questions that I think you fail to address in your article:

Can localized food production sustain cities the size of LA, Chicago, or New York? If not, then people would have to emigrate to less populated areas using countless amounts of fuel for transportation (a scenario similar to the urbanization foreseen in China's future) , and reversing the centralization of talent and industry that cities have achieved in the last century.

Also, in case of natural disasters and unpredicted droughts or floods there will necessarily be food shortages in some affected regions. And, of course, people would have to give up some pleasures like tropical fruits.

So, what I picture as a result from dismantling industrial agriculture is a nation of people scattered all over the land in small clusters, most of whom spend their days farming and harvesting, with a small minority taking care of other necessities such as education. I guess clothing would be pricier and less comfortable too with the reduced amount of cotton. Reminds me of the civilizations I read about from several hundred years ago.

That, of course, is my 2 cent, generally uninformed conclusion. Is this an avoidable situation, and how can it be avoided?