You have to laugh at our climate control plan!

posted to Climate Concern Group 1/28/09

You have to laugh about the long range predictions for the environment, though.    The planners show ocean levels continuing to rise for 1000+ years, even if CO2 increases are halted immediately.  The curves all have a different slope depending on how soon.

That well founded idea has been in all the literature, even from the economists, for a decade or more.  see:


It shows every physical symptom of growth leveling off,
and GDP shooting straight UP! Continue reading You have to laugh at our climate control plan!

Our great & tragic hope for bridging the gap

Right, it’s not only that things get more expensive, but more profitable to make more expensive too. On the downslope as shortages develop faster than expectations are broken the prices of things are driven up.   Then people who control resources profit from accelerating their depletion which vastly worsens the problem.

I think that’s a good general explanation for why the last tree on the Easter Islands was cut down.    It was the one with the highest profit to the owner.    That that also effectively terminated what was probably a kind of “tree worship” civilization is the curiosity…

manGap.jpg Continue reading Our great & tragic hope for bridging the gap

I enjoyed the Connections site

Re: HDS sustainability Connections site from 1/22/09

Will, All the best to you and Nicky too! Thanks for the note.

People get so absorbed with their solutions it keeps us from seeing that most mistakes come from not checking our way of defining our problems.  It takes constant reminders to just ‘look around’ for unaccounted new things happening in the world we might use or we might run into, as we go…!

Best, pfh Continue reading I enjoyed the Connections site

The big contradiction in our Climate values.

response to Carbon Equity newsletter 1/20/09


Your list of current climate change media sources is amazing, thanks, but troubling too, showing our deep confusion.

It’s amazing what an outpouring of warnings and commitments to act on solutions there is… The trouble is that all the warnings are responding to impacts caused by the profit making solutions of the past, and the present solutions are all intended to work by stimulating multiplying profit too. For a very simple reason that is bound to have the same sort of multiplying impacts. Multiplying money is not “inherently” bad, just inherently bad when the earth is already suffering from our multiplying impacts. Continue reading The big contradiction in our Climate values.

The tragedy of Barak

from RunningOnEmpty post 1/18/08

Thinking 100 years into the future with assumptions from 100 years in the past… is a problem. It’s tragic to hear of Barak’s crystal clear statement about global warming.

We know that preventing global warming requires physically lowering our total resource footprint on the earth so we can live sustainably.   That directly conflicts with all his other policies for continually swelling our footprint by restoring continual economic growth.

Cost will rule and no one who remains competitive will be using clean energy. Continue reading The tragedy of Barak

New path in the darkness, outreach to Helena Norberg-Hodge

Helena Norberg-Hodge,

A new friend mentioned your writings, and I find you are asking a lot of questions I think I can help answer.   I’m a scientist who is slowly learning how to explain to people what I found.

Understanding how nature changed the world to make growth profoundly unprofitable is something I view from a physical science approach, leading to a better understanding of how natural systems work as wholes.  They go through phases of development, where the meanings of things change.

I do diagnostic complex systems science to watch how it happens.   It points to how the real solution to growth is understanding our stage of growth, now needing to mature toward stability to avoid accelerating our conflicts and scarcities. Continue reading New path in the darkness, outreach to Helena Norberg-Hodge

The Anatomy of Entropy


You asked:
> Actually is entropy the right word for you? In a way you are asking
> about anti entropy, about the ability to construct structure, how that
> increases, plateaus then decreases. THat might make it clearer ??
> Charlie

I think the energy consumed by an energy flow process (entropy) can generally be divided into three main parts. Because it takes a system serving as the channel to do it, there’s the part of the energy used in collecting the resource from the environment, the part used in changing and channeling it into an output, and then the part used in distributing the products. Continue reading The Anatomy of Entropy

Wishful solutions that multiply problems later

Re: Climate change media 6 January 2009 CarbonEquity, Climate Action Centre, Melbourne To subscribe (one email per week) send blank email

David, reply 1/10/09

Interesting list of studies and alternatives!   In the same way that “clean coal” seems to never have existed except as wishful thinking, “good growth” never has either, and most of the solutions on the list depend on it.

There are a lot of other ways that some of our “solutions” multiply problems too.    It’s a major theme of what we’re dealing with.  All our increasingly insolvable problems were created by widely supported solutions of the past. Continue reading Wishful solutions that multiply problems later

Why “new rules” apply? – Nature changed them

Steve Salmony, 1/12/09 reply to post below

Very nice letter, clear and solid.   I think one more thing that people will need to understand in some way is “why the rules changed”, and then address what rules changed and what new rules apply.

The basic public support for “sustainability” has been achieved, we just seem clueless as to what it really means or what we’d need to do to achieve it.

The big dilemma is that everyone’s favorite solution, self-restraints and technology efficiencies, don’t have the intended effect on the whole system, *especially* if they work.     Continue reading Why “new rules” apply? – Nature changed them

“Producer side” & “Consumer side” as one circle

1/9/09 post to ClimateConcernGroup

re: Consumer-side v. Producer-side Environmentalism

No doubt it does help to look around at all the contradictions, and try to connect them, but from a scientific view each side of a circle still represents the same object. The difference between the “production” and “consumption” side, from a systems view of the economic issues, is that they’re two sides of the same circle.

The actual control available for natural system circles is usually not in which side of the circle you favor, but the economic multiplier that adds or subtracts an increment to both sides of the circle every time a dollar goes all the way around it. Continue reading “Producer side” & “Consumer side” as one circle