post peak living

October 27th, 2010

Map of…well…just go here if you like maps.

Overall there are hints of this even today (the article below is from Nov. 2008), but I wonder if the move to alternate energy sources has finally reached the mainstream. It always made sense to secure your energy sources—but either the Reagan/Bush administrations knew about it and didn’t want to make it a public, pretending not to know so they could go to war in the Iraq and stir up trouble in the Middle East and Afghanistan or the energy companies/corporations really weren’t thinking/planning/scheming ahead.

Better energy policy and planning ahead makes so much sense that I can’t believe the administration/corporations didn’t have a plan in their back pocket since the 70s oil crisis. I have a hard time believing that they are that shortsighted given all of the tricks and lobbying that they are pulling presently. With the vast amount of terrorism drama press and propaganda about the USA being so comfortable yet vulnerable, stable and great, it appears more as a smokescreen that kept the public off their backs as they raped the coffers of foreign oil.


The major point above calling out for attention is my underlying premise. Why would I think that there is any mainstream, or dominant cultural wave with any interest in energy policy at all? Or any large scale interest or consensus in planning a more inclusive, or permanent goal for the United States energy as a whole? Either it’s really well hidden in the press (blogs, news, diary posts) or it simply doesn’t exist.

I know there are pieces and pockets of movements; community driven efforts to set out on a different path. Those movements are easy to uncover. But their efforts don’t seem to be taking hold within a wider audience. Their effect is still being marginalized by the louder debates about global warming, unemployment, oil and gas permits in untouched (untapped!) lands and all the debating and finger-pointing about the current economic crisis.

I’m beginning to doubt that ‘a big picture’ will ever emerge in everyday discussion.

Democracy is utterly dependent upon an electorate that is accurately informed. In promoting climate change denial (and often denying their responsibility for doing so) industry has done more than endanger the environment. It has undermined democracy.

There is a vast difference between putting forth a point of view, honestly held, and intentionally sowing the seeds of confusion. Free speech does not include the right to deceive. Deception is not a point of view. And the right to disagree does not include a right to intentionally subvert the public awareness.

– from Desmog Blog

Though the first sentence of the second paragraph is accurate, I have to disagree with the rest of it. The funny thing about free speech is that it does allow open expression (by its very definition) including deception, both intentional and unintentional.

As in Stanislaw Lem’s His Master’s Voice, the main character speculates on the value added by a vast tome they had just completed.

No doubt. But there are benefits and there are benefits. Ants that encounter in their path a dead philosopher may make good use of him. If the example is shocking, I intend it to be. Literature, from the beginning, has had a single enemy, and that is the restriction of the expressed idea. It turns out, however, that freedom of expression sometimes presents a greater threat to an idea, because forbidden thoughts may circulate in secret, but what can be done when an important fact is lost in a flood of impostors, and the voice of truth becomes drowned in an ungodly din? When that voice, though freely resounding, cannot be heard, because the technologies of information have led to a situation in which one can receive best the message of him who shouts the loudest, even the most falsely?Stanislaw Lem

Leave a Comment