talk to Orion

1 - There are several simple principles that the nature lover abides by: take only what you need, and leave the site you visit as you would hope to find it--something like the old Zen imperative: Speak only if it is an improvement on silence.
But now we do most thing because we can and it is technology that gives us the green light.
We have to take green-belts seriously. One of the most impressive sights is the Canadian Highway #1 as it moves up through the Rockies in Alberta: special crossings for animals above the highway. We are the visitors and we should leave the ancient migration paths undisturbed.
We have to limit highway travel to those who need it--need determined not by market but by proven urgency--the present technology requires gasoline and diesel for over-the-road distance travel--those fuels should be expensive and rationed. In-city travel and public transport should be mandated electric--electricity to be generated by 50-70% wind/solar/hydro. This form of transportation, including train travel should be subsidized and very cheap. We should invest in a French-TGV-style system nationally.
We should try to hold the world population to its present level--initiatives in education, health, technology would come close to accomplishing this.
The endangered species idea should be extended to many more animals--an absolute prohibition on certain fishing, all whaling except native peoples, most non-food animals except for proven humanitarian reasons. The principle should be extended to certain proven endangered cultures within tightly circumscribed locales--membership requiring full, 100% "blood" qualification.
Lobbyist incomes should be limited to no more than 5 times the average salary. No politician, politician family member, former employee of a politician may be a lobbyist EVER. No politician or any of above degrees of family or professional relationship may accept any gift from a lobbyist. Green interests should have their lobbying supported in part by public funds.
Taxes raised to prohibitive levels on off-road vehicles, vehicles with power beyond needs of transportation-- muscle cars, huge SUVs, exotic cars.
 (Comment this)

2 - JHK is good at pointing out the obvious things for other people to do. He should follow his own advice and stop flying around the globe to berate others for consuming too much fossil fuel and protesting the war in Iraq. He should stop the cheerleading for bombing Iran. (Comment this)

3 - I am getting very tired of reading these types of articles. What I see happening around me is very different: I see more vehicles/person and more and more people buying ATVs, motorcycles (with extremely loud exhaust systems that sound like high decibel farts), huge powerboats, huge pickups and pretty much anything else that requires use of a combustion engine. I live on the coast of Oregon--traffic congestion in my area has gone way up year 'round. Illegal driving in beaches has also increased. Huge new houses, often 2nd, 3rd or 4th homes, are being built. Current residents are being told we "must" pay for new water treatment plants, sewer treatment plants, so we can continue to have clean water, etc., but it's really being done so more development is possible. The city now appears to be subsidizing the local airport so wealthy people can fly their planes here. So now, all summer long, I get to "enjoy" the sound (loud) and sight of small planes, often flying illegally low, back and forth over where I live. Because I live a few blocks from the beach.

I moved where I did, partly because I wanted to be near the beach (and it wasn't expensive to do so at that time) and I wanted to be close enough to walk into town.

I now deeply regret that decision and wish I'd moved out of town. Would it have been a longer drive? And it would've been harder to walk as there's only a state highway to get into town (where I am now, I can walk a fair part of the way on the beach, especially if the tide is out). I regret it because I am tired of the ever increasing noise from the highway--ever larger trucks, triple trailer trucks, ever larger RVs, ever larger pickups, and an ever increasing number of motor vehicles and motorcycles w/extraloud exhausts--so loud you can hear them a mile or more away. And then there's the increasing number of small planes overhead in the summer. I've read several articles stating that Honda has a new small jet coming out and it expects to sell 400 to 450/year just in the US. The EU's new plane emission standards? They don't apply to private jets--although they pollute more per passenger then commercial jets.

So yes, I regret making the "environmentally correct" decision. I try to do as many of my errands as possible on foot--but it's getting to be more and more unpleasant because of the increasing amount of traffic (all year) and, if it's not megabass sound systems blasting, it's some idiot on a Harley high decibel farting by or some young punk w/his extra loud exhaust. Or some huge truck.

It would seem that most people do not believe in the future Mr. Kunstler predicts.

As for our "decrepit" train system--I'd suggest that Mr. Kunstler trying paying some attention to what is actually happening. Ridership just in Michigan is up considerably--on those 'decrepit' train systems. Illinois thinks those "decrepit" trains are worth subsidizing so that there are more trains running between Chicago and Champaign, IL--and ridership is going up. Revenues are up to record levels in the Northeast corridor. The Acelas on time record is over 90%. The Empire Builders' ridership (a long distance train) is up around 3-4%. The trains may be "decrepit" Mr. Kunstler but people are riding them anyway and seem to like what happens. Although taking a plane is so unpleasant these days, it wouldn't take much and in my experience in the past 5 years, their on time performance isn't good. It's clear that at least some of the airlines pad their schedules so that they can wait 30 minutes to get off the ground, yet still be "on time."

Yes, it'd be great if the US government would subsidize passenger rail the way it does the interstate highway system (and motor vehicle use in general) and aviation industry. So, Mr. Kunstler, have you written to your elected reps lately pushing them to do that? Called their offices? I've done all of those things--as well as ride the train as much as I can. If I move, I am likely to move at least 70 miles from where I live now--in part so that I will live near a train station.

But what I see suggests that people are using combustion engines more then ever. I would like to get away from the noise and the stink and so I--like so many other people--will have to move out of the urban area.

So my suggestion? Ban loud exhaust systems, megabass sound systems (in houses and cars) and enforce the bans. Put in place anti-congestion taxes such as the Mayor of London, UK, levies. Place a huge tax on recreational vehicles--RVs, ATVs, jetskis, snowmobiles and heavily--an annual tax. Slap a huge tax on corporate and small jets. At the same time, offer travel alternatives: more bikepaths-and bikepaths wholly removed from major roads--Corvallis, OR, has such a bikepath--it is separate from the road by about 6 to 30 feet (depending on where you are) and must stretch close to 10 miles. Or it seems to. Depending on the geology of the area--more subways, more lightrails, more buses--and special traffic lanes for buses so they can move faster through traffic then personally owned vehicles can.

But none of that's going to happen in the US, the place where people still don't think we need unions, and fewer and fewer people own more and more. (Comment this)

4 - Though I suspect many of those who will read Kunstler's article are already persuaded, I appreciate his determination to face facts and have his readers face them, too.

I've been able to make a variety of 'other arrangements' for three reasons:

1) I live in one of the outer boroughs of New York City, where public transit is cheap and abundant; and

2) I no longer work full time

3) I'm in good health

Since the first Earth Day in 1970, I've slowly integrated a variety of practices into my daily living, probably like many Americans of my age (64) and class (lower middle). Stuff like reusing, recyling, insulating and caulking; installing more efficient thermostats and water-conserving toilets, switching to a mostly vegetarian diet, etc., etc., etc.

I wasn't able to explain to myself or anyone else why, about 20 years ago, I decided to stop driving and use mass transit instead. It was a decision, not a sacrifice. About two years ago--this time, very consciously--I decided to switch from mass transit to cycling. But cycling in New York City traffic was grim, tense and scary--at least for a 64-year-old who's not into competitive sports. So I switched again, to walking. These days I take mass transit (or the offers of a car ride) only when time, weather or distance make walking impractical. A seven-mile walk (to and from my doctor's office) is about my limit, at least for now.

The next 'other arrangement' I'm contemplating is the switch to a diet that relies on locally grown, seasonal fruits and vegetables. I'll confess this has less to do with a highly developed sense of taste than with the conviction that trucking or shipping produce across continents (and paying the price in all kinds of ways) is insane.

Thanks for Kunstler's article. (Comment this)

5 - As I write, Bush is preparing to order a surge into Iraq of the last 30,000 so-called combat-ready troops in the US military. Althought I'm committed to the walkable city of Portland, OR, I don't have time for any program for the future unless it sets the end of the Iraq occupation as its first priority. This means leveraging your U.S. representative and mine into bringing immediate impeachment proceedings against Bush and Cheney, or, failing that, organizing massive popular resistance on the scale of general strikes. If this goal can't be accomplished now, given the present overwhelming opposition to Bush according to the polls, then any meaningful social change would likely have to await the next catastrophic global shock to arise from the unconstrained inperialistic policy of our elites. We can't afford to wait. (Comment this)

6 - When I read the Kunstler article I was overwhelmed by the sheer volume of his criticism, gloom and doom and with the feeling that was expressed by commentor,'Bill at 2006/12/23': "JHK is good at pointing out the obvious things for other people to do." The article lacks any sense of humanity and rattles off like a deadly machine.

JHK fails to recognize some reality, as is pointed out by 'azurite at 2006/12/23' and by 'Patrick Story at 2006/12/23', that there are people and actions and events that HAVE addressed the problems he mentions. How else can he explain the outpouring of sentiment, discussion and organization which has followed the publicationan and screen release of "An Inconvenient Truth"? That film and book has done more than any amount of berating will do in mobilizing people to force the powers that be (government, industry, etc.) to take the actions necessary to address the problems. By projecting a spirit of OPTIMISM (rather than the pessimism of JHK), former VP Al Gore encourages us to demand that those in a position to enact change, do so!!

JHK also fails to consider that some of us who are VERY senior (I am 78) and have struggled over the decades to force change, are now not able to take the action which we fought for when we were younger to help enact the progressive environmental legislation and energy conservation measures - Clean Air, Clean Water, Safe Drinking Water, SuperFund, fuel economy (CAFE) standards, energy conservation, alternative /renewable energy resources, etc - which has been seriously eroded more recently by the reactionary forces who have undermined all that we were able to accomplish. JHK and his generation need to recognize what we did accomplish and to get off their high horses and get down into the streets with the nonviolent activists of today worldwide who are demanding change.

Unfortunately, as Patrick Storey points out in his earlier comment: " I don't have time for any program for the future unless it sets the end of the Iraq occupation as its first priority." And as 'Bill at 2006/12/23' points out: "He (JHK) should stop the cheerleading for bombing Iran", before we get "stuck (even) deeper into the 'Big Muddy'" (the Middle East). First things first!


 (Comment this)

7 - It's astonishing to read such a narrative and realize that such predictions are quite likely to occur--that, indeed, the timeline for our current way of life is nearing a close, that we cannot simply 'replace' oil with another form of energy, but must reinvent our daily patterns entirely. Living so much within the confines of our own heads, culturally and individually egocentric as we are, we do not think of the energy-consuming networks behind each step in our day: every loaf of bread, every plastic gizmo. It's difficult to integrate, so I believe you are right--that the first step is to acknowledge the problem and understand that the solutions are going to be a great deal more than inconvenient. How it will happen I am curious to see, particularly as the world gets larger again. But it also makes me fearful, a feeling that will prevail a great deal as change happens too quickly and people are forced into positions they have no idea how to fill, like that of having to grow one's own food. Perhaps we will surprise ourselves with more grace than we would have thought, but I expect not. (Comment this)

8 - A breath of fresh air! I have read Mr. Kunstler's article
and I am moved. I am moved to have a dialogue with my students at Jilin agriculture University in Changchun,
China where many of the students are leaving the farm
with encouragement on the part of their families as well
as the society.
I think it is important to think of the value of human
beings beyond their ability to improve the GNP and
consume more in order to sustain the economy.
I read Future Shock by Alec Toffler, years ago and was
impressed with his vision of the future although I think
Mr. Kunstler's article goes one step further, not due to
Mr. Toffler's short sightedness but rather because conditions continue to change and a new vision is necessary to meet the problems related to change.
There are already small communities dotted throughout the United States and the world who are becoming self-sufficient, who are moving in that direction and they
could certainly provide us with a variety of solutions
for becoming self sufficient without sacrificing quality
of life and perhaps even enriching that.

 (Comment this)

9 - I would far rather be reminded repeatedly of weaknesses in our system and then work on solutions that I can enact in my personal life than be told all is lost unless I can somehow get my inept, greedy, stupid government to just get it's shit together! (Comment this)

10 - I was reading down through this and I began to get the feeling that the guy was describing a car wreck by talking about the damage to the median and the guardrails and the grass along the road etc. I couldn't put my finger on it at first, then I did a search for "over population", nothing...........then "population", nothing, .........then "too many people", nothing.
Not one single word about what's actually causing this problem. He's on and on about how we, and Britain, are using all this extra oil, gas, whatever, and from reading this you'd think it was all this suburbanization he talks about. But you can directly correlate the size of suburbs and the rate of energy use to population expansion. And not one word.
Listen, this is not difficult people, the population of the US is now over 300 million. Unless and until that is halted, there will be no hope for a decent future. You can improve efficiency as we have, to levels unimagined today, but if the population continues to increase, you will never stop the energy use increases. It's that simple. (Comment this)