Tuesday, October 20, 2015

Somebunny Publishes Somewhere

Somebunny known to Eli has imposed on Dana Nuccetelli and the Guardian to publish a short piece on Ecomodernism which he recommends to all.  There has been some unpleasantness on Twitter  and which also needs correction and some agreement.  More to come?


20 comments:

William Connolley said...

Congratulations, a real paper at last.

> some unpleasantness on Twitter

Links to the Graun.

8c7793aa-15b2-11e5-898a-67ca934bd1df said...

First of all, we've been in the 1984 future since about ... 1984 at least. Probably since World War II or even earlier. We are about to enter an entirely new nationalist fascist realm for your viewing horror.

Brave new world is what you will get if you 1) don't go carbon negative in a real hurry, and 2) don't begin an orderly evacuation into your entirely modern and Life on Earth derived and fed brave new worlds, preferably off planet somewhere, deep underground. You just don't have the surface area with all the energy and material requirements of your trinkets and kilns, and having to face true natural biological reality will do you some real good. So be sure to save your seeds and compost your leaves. You'll need them. Start thinking national security orders. Get Canada on board if you have to.

Call it ... exomodernism.

Layzej said...

Seems bizarre to think that conservatives would get behind such a top down approach rather than one that sets an appropriate market signal and leaves individuals with the freedom to choose.

E. Swanson said...

Thanks, Eli. Nordhaus et al. and The Breakthrough Institute's vision of Ecomodernism as the future path for the Earth's populations misses obvious problems. By comparing past performance in agriculture by looking at yield per acre misses the fact that the developed nations rely on fossil fuels for inputs required to achieve those results. What happens when that fossil fuel use must be curtailed because of Climate Change or as the result of Peak Oil? Hidden from sight is their support of nuclear power, which, as we know, has seen major problems over the decades. Worse, modern crop practices result in continual loss of top soil resulting in abandonment of farm land, which implies that ever more land must be converted from natural ecosystems into farming. Eventually, there won't be any more land left to develop.

As it happens, I've been reading Lester Brown's book "Plan B 4.0", published in 2009. Brown has followed the basic problem of feeding the growing populations of the Earth for many decades and his presentation leaves little doubt that we are headed for considerable turmoil. For example, he describes the agriculture in Ethiopia, predicting massive disruption due to lack of water and the trend of pastoralist to increase the size of their herds. Sure enough, the latest news from Ethiopia is that there's another drought and the animals are dying "like flies". Of course, the NYT story doesn't mention the real problem, population growth beyond that which the surrounding ecosystems can provide enough food and water.

Of course, mankind might get lucky and technology will save our species. So far, in so many ways, things aren't looking so good, IMHO...

wheelism said...

The Ecomodern label is no more than an attempt by the lukewarmer stable to finagle a seat at The Table. Why settle for an uncomfortable transition to emissons-free energy when we can pretend that a massively-improbable global investment in (and forced relocations to) prohibitively-expensive supercities is the other option?

izenmeme said...

in the Ecomodern city state we will all live as Alphas, all that collecting the garbage and providing other services will be done by semi-autonomous drones.
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/oct/16/robots-to-replace-diggers-in-plan-to-turn-leeds-into-self-repairing-city

As long as the robots obey the three laws...

The reality of intensive agriculture where the temperature and water supply have to be controlled for high yields can be seen where it is already practiced.
http://www.greenguidespain.com/andalucia/2008/12/the-good-the-bad-and-the-ugly/

guthrie said...

So, enquiring minds want to know why the bunny decided to use a pseudonym such as Josh Halpern and write for a dead tree newspaper, rather than snark away online?

Hank Roberts said...

I keep wondering how the Breakthrough plan would treat the oceans.

Commons? Managed for high yield? Left alone to restore biodiversity?

EliRabett said...

guthrie, Eli just enjoys twisting Richard Tol's mind

EliRabett said...

If anybunny wants to see a meltdown, alex trembath's tweets today are a treat. There are advantages to this gig.

Tom said...

The people who invented Ecomodernism are all wrong! This is what Ecomodernism is! Therefore Ecomodernism is all wrong too!

I think you skipped a step.

Kevin O'Neill said...

"As population growth slows down and demand for material goods saturates in developed nations..."

Demand saturation. Yeah, that's right around the corner ..... say by 2525.

Do they really take themselves seriously - apparently Tremblath does, he must not have any friends willing to tell him to quit smoking his own dope.

izenmeme said...

The Ecomodern idea of protecting 'Nature' is based in a mistaken idea that there are 'Wild' areas untouched by human intervention that can be preserved.

Humans have inhabited almost every inch of the land surface except for Antarctica. None of the land area that CAN be exploited have escaped some modification by human intervention, even the Arctic has had several sequences of human habitation.

The Amazon rainforest, the African savannah, Yellowstone and Yosemite are NOT wilderness areas, they are shaped by several millennia of humans as the top predator.
There is a reason that many of the large mammals disappeared as humans spread across the post glacial world.

wheelism said...

"I think you skipped a step."

More hot air from Tom's Janus,
His two faces
The same side of the coin.

(The Audience is the Difference.)

Fanning the flames of denier ignorance
While rubbing his junk up against Shellenberger's thigh.

Rebel or Respectable?

Tom's not confused.
Tom's just a piece of sh!t.

Tom said...

I guess junk rubber is better than money grubber. A little.

It's Doom or Nothing! Full speed ahead!

wheelism said...

A transition to emissions-free energy is 'doom?' The conceit that your decoupled Utopias are somehow more feasible or responsible than the obvious solution is both laughable AND a pathetic attempt to delay action.

wheelism said...

Layzej said...

Seems bizarre to think that conservatives would get behind such a top down approach rather than one that sets an appropriate market signal and leaves individuals with the freedom to choose.

If the UN were to attempt to delineate a future for humanity in terms half as aggressive as the Lukemodernists, Tomcat and MS would positively howl for their blood.

BBD said...

If the UN were to attempt to delineate a future for humanity in terms half as aggressive as the Lukemodernists, Tomcat and MS would positively howl for their blood.

Oh yes.

Chase Stoudt said...

I'm not a twitterer, but that was painful to watch Trembath's trainwreck.

Hank Roberts said...

> shaped by several millennia of humans as the top predator.

Presumably there's an Ecomodernist version of fox hunting to cover that.
Maybe with drones.