I also don’t get some of his points. It is okay to buy an energy efficient washer, but not a “flat screen” TV, which, despite what he thinks, can use a lot less energy than an old fashioned CRT model. But, it’s not okay to buy a dryer, because “that’s the sun’s job.” These are very arbitrary and subjective choices.

And, what does he exactly mean by “community?” I constantly see “community” put up as some panacea to our GW and peak oil problems. But, here, it is not well defined. McKibben puts up public transit, farmer’s markets, and “co-housing” as examples of what this “community” will allow us to do. But, I already do all three within the confines of an “advanced consumer society” that apparently makes these things difficult. It is all so hand-wavy.

Real solutions require adapting current systems as best we can in an attempt to increase efficiency and mitigate against the unknown effects of GW and PO on the vital services provided by society such as food, shelter, water, sanitation, etc. For example, farmer’s markets are great, but they aren’t perfect. Some food can’t be grown locally and even if it could, it could still be more energy efficient to grow it elsewhere and ship it in. And, frankly, we’ll all starve if we are forced to just eat what can be grown locally. Why not work to increase farmer’s markets, but also adapt existing grocery stores to provide more local foods and work on reducing the energy requirements of their supply chains? And, your cause isn’t helped by implying that if you aren’t eating from farmer’s markets, then you somehow aren’t eating “real food” and don’t know what it tastes like. That’s just insulting and stupid. In the real world, people buy from both places and if done right, the food from a grocery store is just as real and tasty as stuff from a farmer’s market.

The near term mitigation strategy, as McKibben points out, is conservation of energy. But, the specific ways we accomplish conservation depend on specific circumstances. It just really irritates me when articles like this one obscure that point by making broad over generalizations and get hung up on moralizing about how we “should” or “must” change the way we live our lives. Yes, we must change, we are changing, and suggestions for how are welcome, but stop telling me what I must do. I’ll decide what is most appropriate for my situation and together we’ll decide what is best for our communities, towns, schools, businesses, etc. This dictatorship of environmental dogma that I sometimes see is counterproductive. There isn’t One True Way to tackle GW and Peak Oil, there many that are highly dependent on specific, local circumstances.

Ultimately, though, if you get beyond the annoying self-righteous tone and the unrealistic, perhaps naive, portrait of global activism saving the day, there are some good take-home points:

1. Conserve, conserve, conserve! However you can, wherever you can. Not only does this help in mitigating global warming and peak oil consequences, it can save you money. And, who doesn’t need to save money in a recession?

2. Think about the consequences of your actions, both large and small. Consume smartly when you have to consume at all. Buy the energy efficient devices when you need to replace what you have and after you have exhausted the possibility of acquiring used. Understand where your food comes from, where your electricity comes from, your gasoline, etc. How does your pattern of consumption fit into the overall big picture?

3. Be politically active. Change won’t happen without world governments getting on board and that probably won’t happen without a strong grassroots movement pushing for it.

4. Spread the word. Tackling this problem requires efforts by everyone and every entity in society, from individuals to governments. I still find today that far too many people who are otherwise educated don’t understand the severity of the issue, but will listen intently to someone who is willing to explain it to them without moralizing about it.

The audio is available in multiple formats, including MP3, so you can download and listen to it in whatever way is convenient.

From the article:

The document (with a title printed in a pale gray suitable for something nonexistent) was intended as a template for what the United Nations hopes will, by Friday night, be a two-year road map for talks leading to a meaningful update to the faltering 1992 climate treaty, the Framework Convention on Climate Change.

But late Tuesday, Bali time, the United States bluntly refused to consider language — even in the non-binding preamble — that included any specific numbers for how much overall emissions from wealthy countries would need to be cut to have a chance of avoiding the worst climate dangers.

For over seven years now, the United States has actively undermined any chance for our civilization to collectively respond to the dire threats posed by global warming. And, despite soothing words from the administration about how they take climate change seriously, their actions demonstrate that they still have not joined the rest of us in the “reality-based community”.

I know my family and friends are getting tired of me saying this, but we are facing multiple, simultaneous, deadly threats to our civilization and species. If global emissions are not brought down quickly and drastically, global warming will continue to accelerate with potentially catastrophic consequences.

At the same time, we are facing the imminent peaking of world oil and natural gas production. But, as these fossil fuels dwindle, the only readily available, relatively abundant substitute will be coal. But, burning coal is a primary cause of global warming and we would only make it worse by going that route. And, I haven’t even mentioned the financial collapse that seems to be occurring in the U.S. right now which might undercut our ability to raise capital and make it nearly impossible to marshall the resources necessary to deal with these problems.

My point is that our problems are tremendous. It may even be too late to fix them or even substantially mitigate their consequences thanks to all the time we have wasted for decades, but especially during this last decade. However, it is worth trying to avoid catastrophe and the rest of the world seems to be forming a unified front to tackle these issues, while the U.S. steadfastly refuses to cooperate.

It looks like we don’t have any chance of seeing a change in U.S. policy until the next administration comes into office. I’m very worried that by the time our national priorities change, it will be too little, too late.