by abbcampbell » Tue 20 Dec 2005, 09:43:32
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('crapattack', 'I') think the point is that mitigation that has no chance of succeeding actually is harmful in that it gives people a false hope and may mean that they don't act on their own behalf.
You say that mitigation has no chance of succeeding and is harmful? Are you an expert in this field? That's a serious question, not a smart-aleck one.
I personally am not an expert, so I am stuck listening to others. So far as I can see, so far, we have folks like this lining up on either side of the argument. Just a few representative samples, for and against:
David Goodstein, PhD, vice-provost of CalTech and nuclear physicist telling us that we should launch a Manhattan-Project style mitigation and focus on nuclear.
Matthew Simmons, Bush Administration energy adviser and investment banker, who actively promotes drilling lots of places which are off-limits now.
Robert Hirsch, Senior Energy Program Advisor at SAIC and advisor to the DoE, suggests immediate mitigation on several fronts.
Congressman Roscoe Bartlett. His PhD is in Physiology, so I don't know how well it applies, but presumably has plenty of inside information and the best advisors. Educates himself well, listening to all sides, including LATOC...he recommends a man-on-the-moon class program for mitigation.
Okay, on the other side:
Matt Savinar, has his JD and passed the bar but no references on his resume to working in this field. Can find no references on his resume of a scientific background. Presumably makes a living writing and selling Peak Oil and survivalist literature. Perhaps he has other sources of expertise, but I don't know what they are if they do exist. His website has been quoted on the floor of congress by Congressman Bartlett, but Congressman Bartlett, despite reading Savinar's website, is an advocate of mitigation.
Then there are others like Kunstler and Heinberg who seem to come in somewhere between the others.
Kunstler is a professional journalist with a degree. Not sure what it's in. He seems to be most strongly advocating a new-urbanism.
Heinberg is a musician, illustrator, and educator at New College. A quick trip to New College's website (newcollege.edu) shows it is a very unique place, as educational institutions go. His bio doesn't list anything about his educational credentials, although other educators there have listed their degrees.
I've skipped out other players from both sides, like Amory Lovins and Richard Duncan, simply for lack of time.
Now, none of this on its own is conclusive, but since I'm not an expert in the field, it's what I have to go on. Ideally I'd like to see face to face debates between these folks. Without that, the very least I can say is that the jury is stil out, and there are very credible people advocating mitigation.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I') see preparation as a very positive act that I can take on my own behalf - I've never been one for waiting around from someone to save my ass.
Agreed. It is very positive, and there's no reason for you to wait around for someone to save your ass. I have never recommended otherwise.
What I do recommend is a combination of mitigation and preparation...not one without the other. We need to fix what's wrong in society, yes, but we also need to save what we can of what's right with it.
What can an average citizen do about this? According to one of the experts I listed above, the best an average citizen can do is spread the word and try to apply pressure to governments to tackle immediate mitigation. So...that's what I'll do. In the meanwhile, I'll also start my garden, get out of debt, get as fit as I can, get a bicycle, etc...but I won't give up hope on mitigation.