by Jotapay » Wed 11 Nov 2009, 14:56:46
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('mos6507', 'I')f you know of a way to reduce CO2 output that doesn't raise your libertarian hackles, let me know. Saying "What we need is to move towards more localized, sustainable economies and communities." by itself isn't going to accomplish much if nobody signs on. It's just a platitude. Otherwise I suggest you get your priorities in order regarding the gravity of climate change. Because the way we're headed, your personal liberty's not gonna last very long when the zombies come banging down the door to make you into long-pork stew.
I think your points here are valid, but an organic sea change in regards to Peak Oil is possible, even if it's unlikely. It would take sufficient crisis at great pain to make this happen, as has happened in the past with the American civil rights movement and the liberation of India under Ghandi's direction.
But I don't see the corporatization of peak oil as a good solution to the problem, really. Global corporations are diametrically opposed to localized, sustainable economies, which is what we need. Corporations would restrict human activity through massive regulation on our everyday lives to reduce energy through central planning. It would be better if the economy were reorganized into more localized/regional structures with emphasis on regional self-sufficiency. Citizens would be more productive with more work and have a better standard of living under this system. Corporations will never allow us to take this path because they are committed to global operations and planning.
I would rather be a productive blacksmith, electrician or small business owner in my local community than a specialist in a cubicle where every thing I do during the day is dictated by the corporate headquarters on the other side of the world. I already do the latter and it's not a pretty long term existence.
Again, I think your points are valid. It's not going to be pretty no matter how this hashes itself out.