by dator at 2:06 PM
An article by John Lanchester in the November 10, 2008 issue of The New Yorker (p. 80ff) is subtitled, "Before the financial system went bust, it went postmodern."
I think this is a point worth reflecting on.
Clearly over the past thirty years, the economy has become thoroughly faith-based on the one hand while embracing other more secular aspects of a postmodern Dream Society on the other.
Lanchester offers many telling examples. Here is one: "…the total marked in derivative products around the world is counted in the hundreds of trillions of dollars. Nobody knows the exact figure, but the notional amount certainly exceeds the total value of all the world's economic output, roughly sixty-six trillion dollars, by a huge factor--perhaps tenfold. It seems wholly contrary to common sense that the market for products that derive from real things should be unimaginably vaster than the market for things themselves."
Over the same time, US military commanders became convinced that "shock and awe", with few ground troops necessary, was the future of war. Whatever the virtues of this position, clearly postmodern warfare doesn't work against premodern adversaries.
And while W fully embraced many of the aspects of a Dream Society (in which compelling dreams are more important than dreary facts--"Mission Accomplished!"), it seems to me that the Obama campaign successfully offered fantastic Dream Society visions--in content certainly, but even more clearly in the modes of communication it utilized.
So one question is, can postmodern Dreamers handle economic, energy, and environmental challenges that are so very thoroughly modern?
Jim Dator
by dator at 1:53 PM
Bob Olson, of the Institute for Alternative Futures, sent the following scenario, inspired by the article also posted below:
Here's a scenario alternative to or variant of The Unholy Trinity. The Peak Oil alarmists turn out to be right, but presented with a choice between precipitous economic decline and weakening efforts to constrain climate change, the U.S. and China choose to develop coal liquids on a massive scale. (The U.S. and China are the Saudis of coal, with enough to supply the world with synfuels for a century.) Of course this turn to coal would be rationalized as a short-term emergency measure. But coal rather than renewables would get the huge subsidies and soak up the investment money, become more politically powerful than ever, and then maintain its new role. The major uncertainty in this scenario is how soon the total climate melt-down would occur. See the article below.
Coal is the great danger as 'peak oil' approaches, scientist warns
18 December 2008
By Harvey Leifert
for the Daily Climate
When will oil production peak and begin to decline? Scientists, engineers and economists have debated the point for years, on the assumption that carbon dioxide emissions will decline when less oil is burned.
What fuel society chooses after 'peak oil' is one of the largest sources of uncertainty in climate models
Not so, says Ken Caldeira, a climate scientist with the Carnegie Institution in Stanford, Calif. That assumes society switches to low-carbon fuel. But there's a good chance society will jump to the most abundant fuel around: Coal, which emits 25 to 50 percent more carbon dioxide per energy unit than petroleum, according to the Energy Information Administration.
Therefore, Caldeira said, the more important question – and one of the largest sources of uncertainty in climate models – is "will the end of oil usher in a century of coal, or will it usher in a transition toward low-carbon-emitting technologies?"
Speaking Wednesday at the American Geophysical Union's Fall Meeting in San Francisco, Caldeira reported on recent forecasts of how the climate would respond if the world completely stopped using oil today. In the one case, it is replaced with coal-based liquid fuels and in the other with renewable resources, such as wind, solar, or nuclear power.
The results are clear, Caldeira said. If liquefied coal powered the world's vehicles, produced its heating, and generated its electricity, Earth would warm 2º Celsius (3.6º Fahrenheit) by 2042, three years sooner than if society continued to use oil. If, however, society replaces oil with renewable energy, that 2º C rise would occur in 2056, 11 years later than with oil.
The reality, Caldeira said, is that we will never run out of oil. As it becomes scarcer and more expensive to extract, industry will switch to other fuels for economic reasons. The danger is that coal will likely appear to be the cheapest alternative.
So rather than view peak oil as a climate savior, he said, those scientists, engineers and economists should see the end of oil as a "new challenge" to efforts to cut carbon dioxide emissions.
Harvey Leifert is a freelance reporter based in Bethesda, Md. To reach the Daily Climate, contact editor Douglas Fischer at dfischer@dailyclimate.org.
by dator at 3:16 PM
It may be time for a new branch of futures studies.
It is the branch that forecasts, studies, and describes the processes and consequences of abandonment decay on a massive scale.
As the recession deepens and quickens, as giant companies fail and their employees and clients flee, as more and more urban centers and blighted malls become suddenly vacant, and then as climate changes, seas rise, and diseases spread, what happens to those buildings, to the people who inhabited them, and especially to the beliefs and values that once created and sustained them?
Rebecca Solnit wrote a piece in Harper's, July 2007, titled "Detroit arcadia: Exploring the post-American landscape". It was a vivid essay describing the way in which "nature" has returned as vast tracts of Detroit have been abandoned.
Now, with the collapse of the auto industry of that city imminent--foreshadowing perhaps the collapse of most financial and industrial processes worldwide--Bill McGraw of the Detroit Free Press has described what happened when the elite Packard automobile company vanished. Here is what he wrote, slightly shortened:
In the summer of 1956, the once-mighty Packard Motor Car Company closed its doors. Its headquarters and chief production complex still stand here, though, and their slowly decaying remains serve as a symbol for the fall of American manufacturing in general and the degradation of the auto industry in particular. The Packard plant sits on East Grand Boulevard on Detroit's east side. It is immense: 3.5 million square feet of space in 47 connected buildings. The campus stretches for almost a mile north to south.
The property is virtually abandoned, and much of it has been empty for years. Almost all the windows in the four- and five-story buildings — thousands of them — are broken. The bricks and masonry are crumbling, and two large enclosed bridges that soar over streets are falling apart. Part of one of the large passageways recently collapsed onto Bellevue Avenue, and still sits there, blocking the street.
Some floors have caved in because metal scrappers have cut out the I-beams. Vast rooms are filled with trash, from old shoes to unwanted pleasure boats.
Nature has reasserted itself: Trees grow on the roof and moss has spread inside. Chalky stalactites hang from ceilings, apparently the result of rain coursing through the walls.
Water from broken pipes collects into small lakes, freezes during the Michigan winters, then breaks up in spring and runs out of the plant onto neighboring streets. The plant is home to wild dogs, feral cats, homeless people. Arson is a regular event.
In its day, when Detroit was the Silicon Valley of the early 20th century, the Packard complex was a center for innovation. In 1905, the architect Albert Kahn designed Building No. 10 with reinforced steel concrete, creating an airy, spacious workspace. Such construction revolutionized the building of factories around the world.
The demise of Packard took place as the city's industrial base was beginning to unravel. Other notable firms that folded or merged in that era included the Hudson Motor Car Company, Murray Body, Motor Products and Detroit Stove Works. By the end of the 1950s, unemployment had soared, white flight was under way and Detroit's downward spiral had begun.
Misery has rarely been mentioned as a reason to pass an auto industry bailout. But walk through the Packard plant on a December day and you will know that once a car company disappears, in southeast Michigan at least, nothing comes along to take its place.
Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/13/opinion/13mcgraw.html?th&emc=th
by dator at 10:21 AM
Foreign Policy released its ten worst predictions for 2008.
Take a look.
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/cms.php?story_id=4569
It makes clear once again why one should never pretend to be able to predict anything of consequence, or use the word "will" in any sentence ("may" may be OK, but even "most likely" is, "most likely", pretty iffy).
Jim Dator
