One of those weeks! - off to war with Uncle Sam, Tar Sands and railroad follies redux

           This was an unexpectedly busy week for the Harper government.

           Canada has joined another "coalition of the willing" to fight the Islamic State in Irak and environs. Washington asked us for help. Harper held a not very informative "debate" in parliament. Nobody had much to say: all parties came with scripted presentations. It was all Pro Forma, anyway, for the sake of the media: with their majority, the Conservatives had the vote in the bag!

            One can only surmise why the Islamic State is behaving the way it is. Experts give variable opinions. My suspicion is that they are trying to provoke the West to make a lot of martyrs in the expectation that martyrs will attract warriors from the myriads of disaffected, alienated, frustrated young men in the world today. One recalls the propaganda value of martyrdom for the early Christian churches. The West forgets its own history on this point..

             In a sense, the Harper government, is probably getting off the hook easy. Preparations for war tend to put other pressing issues on the back burner, time during which the public may simply forget about them. War is the Ultimate Hot Button issue hence useful for rulers wishing to pull the wool over the public's eyes. Two thousand years ago, the Romans recognized this utility of war: a good war takes minds off how badly things are going at home. War rallies a divided nation..

            Beneath the preparations for war,Tar Sands "development" continues to scarify the environment of Alberta.

            To kick things off, Alberta's own auditor general found serious faults in a joint provincial - federal - industry tar sands monitoring program. The usual type of thing you see when the Harper government finds itself forced to "regulate" - or appear to regulate - the petrochemical or other extractive industries (mines..) Thus, reports are issued well after appointed deadlines (funny - no one suffers chastisement for these repeated delays. The same does not apply to the individual taxpayer and Revenue Canada on tax deadline day, one notes..) The latest annual report was, despite the delays, badly written, unclear and lacked key pieces of information. In other words, the work of people who don't believe in what they are doing. People payed by the taxpayers but just going through the motions of doing a job for the sake of public relations (and also knowing that the "boys upstairs" don't give a shit about monitoring the oil industry either). So much for industry "self-regulation"..

http://www.mykawartha.com/news-story/4902921-alberta-auditor-finds-oilsands-monitoring-lacking/ 

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/alberta-auditor-general-gives-poor-grades-for-long-term-care-oilsands-1.2791249 

                     Industry self-regulation puts the fox in charge of the hen house

             Meanwhile, on the federal level, the Environment Commissioner found serious flaws in monitoring tar sands emissions. Drafted regulations have not been given the force of law hence amount to little more than public relations. Effects of volatile hydrocarbon emissions on human health (cancers..) are not being properly monitored despite the fact that some northern communities are at risk from emission level spikes that far exceed international or Canadian norms.

http://environmentaldefence.ca/blog/environment-commissioner%E2%80%99s-report-canada-failing-its-own-objective-undertake-responsible-energy 

             Finally, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) obtained leaked documents indicating that Transport Canada has been reviewing rail safety in the light of several derailments involving crude oil shipments, including the tragic Lac Mégantic, Québec conflagration which killed 47 last summer.

internal blog links: Key Words: Lac Megantic (8 articles)

            The documents received by the CBC indicate that railways are cutting costs by reducing staff to the minimum, one of the factors already indicted in the Lac Mégantic conflagration. The CBC documents reveal that due to erratic work schedules, most freight train drivers are operating in a highly fatigued state for an unacceptable fraction of their work hours. Some drivers are working in a state of fatigue such that their attention span and reflex speed are equivalent to those of a legally drunk man!

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/rail-companies-fight-new-rules-to-prevent-crew-fatigue-1.2785581

           Once again we encounter the notion of hidden costs or "externalities". During the last 4 decades, Western governments (and Third World states under International Monetary Fund, World Bank tutelage) have cut regulatory mechanisms.  They were, of course, inspired by the (now) increasingly discredited neo-conservative, "Free Market" ideology. We are now beginning to realize, I believe, some of the hidden costs of this ideology: the Lac Mégantic tragedy for example. One of the real problem in assessing the hidden costs of neo-con economic ideology is how to apportion an economic cost to human lives, health, individual and collective well being. How much was each of the 47 lives lost in the avoidable Lac Mégantic tragedy worth? Do we merely assess lost income over the expected work life of the individuals? What about women who work in the home, how is their economic worth assessed? More fundamentally, is it even a valid exercise to attempt to assign an economic value to a human life?

            More evidence of Harper's foot-dragging, stalling, "smoke-and-mirrors" approach to greenhouse gas emissions. Keep the masses confused and dumb while the future of the planet is compromised in the name of international corporations' bottom line..

http://ottawacitizen.com/news/politics/federal-government-wont-meet-climate-change-promises-on-current-path-watchdog-says 



            

Four pillars of Sustainable Economy

The four pillars of sustainable economy

    
background: We believe the world is going to hell in a hand basket: 

- overpopulation,

- peak oil and resource depletion (with the threat of water and resource wars on the near horizon),

-  climate change (and its almost undefinable potential for socio-political chaos), etc.. 

            If we want to do something positive in the few years remaining to us, what positive contribution could we leave behind? Specifically, how could we create "cultural refugia", viable communities (large or small..) capable of embodying the best values of our existing civilization(s) and also capable of weathering the storms of chaotic change that lie ahead. We will witness unprecedented storms of rapid - and global - ecological collapse (including human population die off), war, hunger, the forced (ecologically driven) reduction in humanity's ecological footprint..

            Now, given the cheery prospects lying ahead, what have we learned about creating a new kind of economy, one in which, for example, human occupation of the land either maintained soil fertility, biodiversity and aesthetic quality or even - wonders of wonders! - actually increased fertility, diversity and natural beauty? Could we even dare to dream that people might actually pass on an "improved" world to their descendants? Is this even possible?

           Well, the various proposals for an ecologically balanced, renewable resource based economy I have studied seem to incorporate, implicitly or explicitly, the following four "pillars" or basic principles:


1st pillar of sustainable economy: Any viable economy - sustainable "unto the 7th generation" - must conform to the "laws" of physics, in general, and particularly to those of thermodynamics, the study of the transformations and flow of energy (heat).

            Now, as soon as we begin this exercise, we are struck by the fact our conventional, university taught economics is founded on very shaky ground indeed. The most elemental observation of material systems negates one of the false axioms of (neo-)classical economics: the requirement of (and capability of maintaining) infinite growth on a finite planet (see footnote 1). Neo-classical economic theory requires the physical absurdity of infinite growth since it postulates that investors will only invest if they are assured of a return on their investment (profit). Profits can only exist if the money supply (somewhat linked to the intensity and volume of economic activity) is constantly increasing: there must always be more money in the pot to keep the investors coming back. Alas! Physics and thermodynamics demonstrate the absurdity of such a position. A constantly increasing volume of economic activity on earth would require a constantly increasing use of energy and material resources. This, of course, is impossible on a finite planet whose finite volume can only contain a finite volume of energy resources and raw materials. A modest growth rate of 2% per annum if sustained for a century would result in a 7 fold increase in the money supply, economic activity and energy utilization! Such exponential growth, typical of compounded interest, is observable in nature but only in exceptional cases.

   (1)- In emergency situations. A rapid transition from one level of biological activity to an other: the cardiac rate of an animal chased by a predator. It must quickly ramp up its cardiac rate from a "resting" state in order to get away.Typically, the initial acceleration is exponential (increasing rapidly). It then falls off, followed by an exponential deceleration (see note 2).

           logistic curve: transitory exponential growth resulting in a rapid transition 

           from one level of activity (cardiac rate) to another

   (2)- uncontrolled growth ("infinite growth"!) is a prelude to system breakdown (cancer is a biological example of deregulated growth).

         This graph, "population versus time", shows how a bacteria colony, resulting from a single bacterial cell, grows over time (given sufficient food). The hick: with exponential growth, food is never sufficient! Eventually, the colony will reach its "Limits to Growth", it will exhaust its food supply and crash. Ecologists refer to this type of "boom / bust" pattern as ecological overshoot / undershoot. Overshoot: when there are too many individuals for the resource base of the environment. Overshoot, or overpopulation, is generally followed by ecological undershoot: the population typically crashes to a small value, often much smaller than the environment could maintain if it had been harvested sustainably. Interestingly, humans - who are supposed to be smarter than bacteria - have been following the same pattern of catastrophic overgrowth for several centuries..

          Finally, thermodynamics rather convincingly demonstrates that perpetual motion machines are not possible. In reality, even a useless machine that only turned a wheel without doing work could not turn forever: friction in its bearing and gears or against the air in which it turned would eventually dissipate the initial impulse as heat. It would eventually slow down and stop, no matter how well greased the mechanism was.

 2nd pillar of sustainable economy: Conformity of economic activity to the "laws of ecology". This means respecting nature's self-regenerative "life-support system" upon which our biological existence depends. At present, by disturbing the equilibria of natural nutrient cycles, we are, in effect, cutting off the branch we are standing on. Consider the carbon cycle. Human released greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide (CO2) and methane (CH4) - which oxidizes to CO2 over time - add (relatively) "small" amounts of these gases to the atmosphere (compared to the amounts naturally cycling through the ecosystems of the world). However, two centuries of continuous high-level excess CO2 production, since the industrial revolution, are now acidifying the oceans to potentially dangerous "tipping points" with numerous potential knock on effects (some of which are unpredictable and represent unknown hazards to which we expose our children and grandchildren). Among these is the reduction in phytoplankton (microscopic ocean plants, the base of the food chain). If left unchecked, our CO2 emissions could, theoretically, provoke a collapse of the oceanic ecosystems with a concomitant reduction in fish stocks (needed to meet the protein needs of an already overpopulated planet). 

         Another important "design principle" found in nature which we stupidly ignore: don't put all your eggs in one basket! Why? Well, if you drop it you risk losing all your eggs. In four baskets, there is some assurance. You can lose at most 25% of your eggs if you drop a basket. In practice, this means, for example, not allowing one type of fuel to monopolize your energy system. Our modern economies are powered by rapidly depleting fossil fuel energy: oil, natural gas, coal. A more resilient approach would emphasize renewable energies: wind, solar (passive thermal, focused thermal, photovoltaic..), geothermal, hydro-electric, wave and tide power, biomass.. It should be remembered that nature's design principles have been honed by 3.5 billion years of Darwinian evolution. We ignore Mother Nature's wisdom to our detriment! (note 4)

           Another global ecological problem created by our failure to live within the bounds set by the laws of ecology: industrial "farming" (agro-business or agro-industry) kills soil organisms which leads to a reduction of essential organic soil content. We are actually losing soil to unsustainable industrial "agriculture" while population continues to rocket up exponentially. Are we mad..

healthy soils contain a lot of organic matter (vegetable residues) and moisture

3rd pillar of sustainable economy: economic behavior should be based upon and regulated by the application of scientific knowledge of human decision making behaviors, specifically economically motivated behaviors.

          Some recent research on collective decision making and collective responsibility is interesting. People, despite the opinion of pessimists, appear to be capable of passing on a self-regenerating resource - like soil quality - to future generations but only if a consensus is reached on how to exploit that resource for current participants (the generation living today). The resource must be protected from overexploitation by a minority of Evil Greedies and, to this end, an efficient centralized "peacekeeper" or rule enforcer should be designated by the collectivity.

"Cooperation is often seen in experimental economic games because actions can be reciprocated. But this trait is of no help in one of the most important types of cooperation: cooperation with future generations who cannot reciprocate if we refrain from overexploiting their resources. To test the conditions under which cooperation with the future can occur, Oliver Hauser et al. developed a laboratory model of cooperation — the Intergenerational Goods Game (IGG) — that differs from previous games in which selfishness creates social efficiency losses for group members. Instead, selfishness negatively impacts subsequent groups. Experiments involving more than 2,000 subjects demonstrate that when decisions on resource extraction are made individually, the resource is rapidly depleted by defectors. But when participants are forced to vote on how the resource should be exploited, it is exploited sustainably across generations. Voting works for two reasons. It allows a majority of cooperators to constrain a minority of defectors, and as all players receive the same amount after a vote, cooperators need not worry about losing out relative to others." (Emphasis added)

from Nature : 10 July, 2014, page 165 

         Such research suggests that the Free Market Ideology is faulty: it tends to lead to a free-for-all in which everyone, especially future generations, loses. 

         This, of course, get us into some interesting "chicken or egg" reflections on the nature of democracy. Democracy means, of course, "rule by the people". Now, all societies need rules to regulate the behaviors of their members and to canalize instinctive behaviors and strong emotions into creative, non-destructive pathways. A code of warrior honor may regulate the ways in which retributive justice or vengeance may be enacted. Religions bind tribes into collective behavior patterns as surely as genes regulate the behavior patterns of insect collectivities (ants, termites, bees..) In human societies, particularly democratic ones, we are left with the quandary: if behavioral regulation (habits, customs, taboos, laws..) is necessary and the people are the rulers, then the people must control the Social Controllers who, in turn, control them! It is a classic "recursive self-organizing" circuit or loop: which came first the chicken or the egg?

            I believe social psychology should study the efficiencies to be gained from decision making and economic activity in small scale, self-regulated, participatory socio-economic units. Over millions of years, our ancestors, both human and protohuman, became experts in small scaled, decentralized, participatory decision making and economic activity: the ancient hunter gatherer community counted no more than a few dozen to several hundred individuals.. (note 3)

            Research should also study the rampant diseconomies of scale arising from "Free Market" ideologies with a view to eliminating them (while maintaining any existing economies of scale where possible). For example, some technologies - computers - appear to be highly "concentrative", requiring agglomerations of highly specialized knowledge and materials, capital; centralized planning and management. How do we integrate such centralized economic structures into decentralized, participatory, democratic societies - without destroying the participatory and democratic values..

4th pillar of sustainable economy: the moral, religious, transcendental or spiritual dimension. The third pillar - Social Psychology - gives us some tools to regulate our collective economic and decision making behaviors. But regulate to what end? To what Ultimate Goal are we committed?

             Like Socrates and Aristotle we must ask "what is the good life?" for our age. What values should we be willing to die - or live! - for? Does life have a meaning? Such questions are, of course, notoriously "open ended". Unlike "closed problems" which have a fixed, universal and unchanging answer, open ended questions have no final answer even if - Oh, perverse Divinity! - they are most important questions of all. Each generation, even if inspired by a strong Tradition, must ask these important, universal open ended questions anew. These questions, or rather their provisional answers, provide a standard (humanism) by which economic activity is be evaluated. These provisional answers also provide goals toward which economic behavior should be directed, for example, toward some ideal of the Common Good.

             Sustainable economics cannot be a three-legged stool! In some ways, the 4th pillar, the most subtle and imprecise, is also the most important. It is the most difficult for our "materialistic", profit driven culture with its emphasis on immediate, short term gain and its ostentatious social ranking founded on the amount of stuff we consume (or waste).. 

Summary:

The Four Principles of Sustainable Economy: conformity to laws of

- physics (particularly thermodynamics)
- ecology (particularly protection of vital ecosystem services)
- social psychology (collective decision making)
- the ethical, spiritual dimension: what is the good life? what values to die / live for?


footnotes:

1- axiom, axiomatic system: An axiomatic system consists of some undefined, primitive terms and a list of statements, called axioms, concerning the undefined terms. One obtains a mathematical theory by proving new statements, called theorems, using only the axioms, logic, and previous theorems.

Adapted from http://web.mnstate.edu/peil/geometry/C1AxiomSystem/AxiomaticSystems.htm

             Geometry was traditionally organized as an axiomatic system. Of course, GIGO: Garbage In - Garbage Out! If you program the computer badly or feed it bad (or badly organized) data it will barf back garbage for results. An axiomatic system is only good - "useful" - if the "primitive terms" and the axioms relating them to one another correspond to reality. Since neo-classical economics postulates infinite growth on a finite world, some of its axioms are faulty and obviously need correction in the light of realism..

            Another false axiom of neo-classical theory: resources (raw materials) are infinitely interchangeable. This is patently false but incomprehensibly taught and accepted as truth in universities - houses of "learning"!! Gold, for example, is a better electrical conductor than copper. But gold is not a substitute for copper wiring: too rare, expensive, soft and heavy. Copper, while not a good a conductor as gold, has the just the right mix of electrical, chemical and physical properties that make it an ideal conductor for practical use.  

2- exponential growth: examples. Population growth of bacteria. You start with 1, then it splits into 2 cells and so on for each "daughter" cell in subsequent generations: 1 - 2 - 4 - 8 - 16 - 32 - 64 - 128 - 256 - 512 - 1024. It only takes ten divisions (generations) to go from 1 to a 1,000 cells (assuming none die)

           Another example of exponential growth: interest rate compounded regularly. Say you have $100 at 10% per annum. After one year you have 100 X .1 = 10 dollars interest. Add this to the capital gives $110 for the second year: 110 X .1 = 11 dollars interest which gives $110 + 11 = $121 principal for the third year. Then 121 x .1 = 12.10 dollars interest in the 4th year.. Note that the interest is always greater than the previous years. This, of course, indicates a long term unsustainable growth situation.

3- social economy:  the economic sector composed of entities (enterprises, cooperatives, associations, funds, foundations..) attempting to achieve social goods (services, products..) through economic activities. The economic entities of this sector typically are democratically governed (1 person = 1 vote) and participatory. They are either non-profit or profits are re-invested or re-distributed within the organisation.

Example: producer / consumer coop. A group of city dwellers contracts several local farmers to provide an "annual foodbasket" of produce to each participant in exchange for a fixed sum of money.

4- Peak Oil: consider a tree full of fruit in autumn. We start by picking the fruit on the lower branches because they are easy to reach. Then, we have to reach higher to get at the remaining fruit. We have to expend more energy and take greater risks: to get the highest fruit we may have to mount a high ladder. The same principle applies to petroleum or any other non-renewable resources. It is possible - with difficulty! - to calculate the amount of energy obtained from a barrel of oil to the amount of energy expended to find and extract it, refine it into finished products (gasoline, diesel oil, plastics..) and transport the finished products to their destination. As easy to exploit oil fields deplete, we are forced to go after the "high hanging fruit". Accordingly, the Energy Return on Energy Invested (EROEI) ratio will diminish over time. Some  typical EROEI figures cited for the petroleum industry:

1930 - 100:1,   1970 - 30:1,   2010 - 8:1
   
         Thus in1930, one obtained 100 times as much energy from a barrel of oil as one expended to extract the oil, refine and ship its products. In a mere 8 decades the ratio has fallen to a paltry 8 to 1 ratio! What more proof of non-renewable resource exhaustion could one hope to find?

http://www.roperld.com/science/minerals/EROEIFossilFuels.htm

Quatre piliers de l'économie durable

Les quatre piliers de l'économie durable

             Oui, le monde est dans un état affreux:

- surpopulation
- Pic Pétrolier (note de bas de page 4) et épuisement de ressources non-renouvelables
- Changement Climatique (et son potentiel de semer le chaos géopolitique)

            Si nous désirons faire quelque chose de positif avec les quelques années qui nous restent, quoi faire? Quelle sorte de monde laissons-nous aux générations futures?

            Comment créer des "refuges culturels", des communautés (petites ou grandes) qui incorporeraient les meilleures valeurs de notre civilisation mais avec des reins assez solides pour subir les orages de changement qui commencent à déferler un peu partout et avec de plus et plus d'insistance. On est en face d'une réduction rapide de notre "empreinte écologique", la décroissance rapide et (possiblement) sans précédent de la population globale, l'effondrement d’écosystèmes à l'échelle planétaire, guerre, faim, j'en passe..

           Les cyniques et les pessimistes crieront que nous sommes une espèce foutue, que la chandelle ne vaut pas la peine. Mais le cynisme est le dernier refuge des impuissants. Cette forme de pensée passive devient vraiment dangereuse quand la victime, n'en étant plus capable, sort de ses gonds pour se joindre à un groupe promettant soit le paradis - les intégristes religieux, soit l'enfer - les intégristes ethno-racistes comme les néo-nazis.

           Admettons que les augures ne sont pas bons. Mais faut quand même continuer à vivre et vivre comme si le futur comptait, comme s'il y avait un avenir (sinon on a le choix: vivre en égoïste ou avaler le canon d'un fusil et sauter la cervelle..) Quoi faire, donc?

           Pensons: est-ce possible de rêver d'un nouvelle type d'économie? Un système économique où l'occupation d'un terroir par les humains augmenterait la fertilité des sols, la biodiversité et la beauté paysagère?
 
           Au fil des années, j'étudiais des propositions pour un système économique basée sur des ressources renouvelables et une bonne gestion de nos écosystèmes nourriciers (eau propre, oxygène, climat stable et tempéré, aliments sauvages,..) Toutes ces propositions se fondent, implicitement ou ouvertement, sur quatre principes de base ou "piliers":

1e pilier de l'économie durable: Toute économie durable - "jusqu'à la 7e génération" - devrait se conformer aux "lois" de la physique. Les lois de la thermodynamique - science des transformations et flux de l'énergie (chaleur) - auront la part du lion: les phénomènes biologiques et les processus économiques impliquent d'abord des transformations et flux d'énergie et de chaleur.

            Au début de cet exercice, il faut se rendre compte d'abord que notre traditionnelle "science économique" enseignée aux universités est bâtie sur du sable. La plus élémentaire étude des systèmes matériels met la hache dans l'un des axiomes fautifs de l'économie néoclassique: la nécessité - et la capacité - de réaliser la croissance infinie sur une planète finie (voir note 1). La croissance infinie serait nécessaire parce que les investisseurs investiront seulement s'ils sont assurés de recevoir un retour (profit) sur leur investissement. Mais le profit existe seulement si la masse monétaire - elle-même fonction de la vitesse et  le volume de l'activité économique - est en croissance continue. Faut toujours plus d'argent dans le pot pour que les investisseurs reviennent toujours à la caisse de départ pour initier un nouvel cycle d'investissement! Mais - hélas! - la physique et la thermodynamique démontrent l'absurdité d'un tel démarche. Par exemple, un volume d'activité économique en croissance continue exigerait un usage sans cesse croissant d'énergie et de matières premières. Ceci est évidement impossible sur une planète finie dont le volume fini peut contenir seulement une quantité finie d'énergie et de matières premières. Une croissance annuelle modeste de 2%, si maintenue pendant un siècle, exigerait 7 fois la masse monétaire, activité économique et énergie qu'actuellement consommés! Certes, telle croissance exponentielle se voit dans la nature mais seulement dans les cas d'exception.

 (1) Par exemple, une transition rapide d'un niveau d'une activité biologique à un autre: le taux cardiaque d'un animal chassé par un prédateur. Il lui faut monter son rythme cardiaque de l'état "repos" à l'état "urgence" très rapidement pour s'enfuir. Mais - très important! - c'est une condition exceptionnelle. L'accélération initiale est exponentielle (c'est-à-dire rapide), puis elle se ralentit, suivie d'une décroissance exponentielle (note 2).

              Dans le graphe ci-dessous, les petits cercles indiquent des données expérimentales "brutes". La courbe est calculée à partir de ces données.

                       courbe logistique: croissance exponentielle transitoire assurant
                       une transition rapide d'un niveau d'activité à un autre


(2) Des conditions, transitoires, de croissance "hors contrôle" (croissance infinie): des cancers ou des explosions. De tels processus sont évidemment "autodestructeurs" donc éphémère, de courte durée: le cancer tue son hôte et meurt enauite. L'explosion consomme "explosivement" tout le combustible disponible. La courbe ci-dessous montre la croissance d'une colonie bactérienne. Le nombre de bactéries est indiqué sur l'axe vertical, le temps sur l'axe horizontal. Mais la nourriture bientôt manquera et les bactéries mourront de faim.
            

           La population humaine suit cette trajectoire depuis déjà plusieurs siècles grâce aux avances dans la production de la nourriture et dans la médecine. Les premières augmentent le taux de naissances, les dernières baissent la mortalité.

                 Enfin, la thermodynamique démontre que la mouvement perpétuel n'est pas possible: rien n'est gratuit! En réalité, même une machine inutile qui seulement fait tourner une roue - sans faire du travail - ne pourrait la tourner perpétuellement. La friction interne de la machine et le frottement contre l'air ambiant dissiperont l'impulsion initiale ("quantité de mouvement") en chaleur (motion aléatoire des molécules). Tôt ou tard, la machine ralentira et s'arrêtera, si bien que son mécanisme soit graissé.

2e pilier de l'économie durable: l'activité économique doit se conformer aux lois de l'écologie. Il faut respecter les "services écologiques" nous fournis gratuitement par la nature: l'oxygène de l'air, l'eau propre à boire, un climat convenable pour permettre la chasse, la cueillette et l'agriculture; le recyclage des déchets,.. Au présent, par nos perturbations des cycles nutritifs naturels, nous coupons la branche sur laquelle nous sommes perchés.

           Considérons le cycle du carbone. Notre métabolisme est alimenté en énergie vitale par la combustion de hydrates de carbone: sucres, amidons, huiles, graisses.. Les éléments nutritifs - essentiels à la vie - comme le carbone, l'oxygène, l'azote, le phosphore.. circulent dans la biosphère - "le Vivant" - et entre la biosphère et des "réservoirs" (sédiments océaniques ou lacustres, l'atmosphère, les eaux, biomasse terrestre ou marine..) 

flux et réservoirs de carbone en gigatonnes (1 gigatonne = 1,000 millions de tonnes)

          Les gaz d'effet de serre émis par des activités industrielles ou agricoles - comme le dioxyde de carbone (CO2) ou le méthane - ajoutent des quantités relativement "petites" aux grands réservoirs atmosphériques et océaniques. Depuis le début de la révolution industrielle, ces "petits" ajouts annuels de carbone à l'atmosphère ont cumulé leurs effets. Aujourd'hui l'excédent de CO2 atmosphérique est en train d'acidifier les mers. Déjà on craint que nous approchions des points de bascule dangereux pour la vie marine avec conséquences potentiellement désastreuses pour l'humanité. Bientôt des organismes planctoniques photosynthétiques mourront: ils ne peuvent plus sécréter des coquilles dans l'eau trop acide. Or ces mêmes organismes forment la base de la toile alimentaire marine. Donc, effondrement prochainement des stocks de poissons dont dépend une grande partie de l'humanité pour leur apport protéinique. Ces stocks de poisson sont déjà sur-exploités par la surpêche et fragilisés par la pollution et les changements climatiques (modification de température de l'eau..) On ne gère pas une planète comme ça pour longtemps..

            Un autre problème écologique global issu de notre refus de suivre les lois de l'écologie: l"'agriculture" industrielle tue des organismes qui créent et maintiennent la vitalité des sols. Nous perdons du sol arable au même temps que la population mondiale grimpe d'une façon exponentielle (donc non-soutenable). Sommes-nous fous? La question se pose.. 

 

                                    Bébites du sol dont dépend sa fertilité

 

                     un sol en bonne santé contient beaucoup de matière organique (résidus végétaux) et d'humidité 

           On dit que la nature "se renouvelle" continuellement. Oui, mais est-ce que nous suivons ses conseils?

            Dire qu'elle se renouvelle veut dire qu'elle se règle. Rien n'est perdu, tout - tôt ou tard - est ré-utilisé. Les écosystèmes - comme la "machine" climatique - roulent sur une énergie renouvelable, le soleil: des photons de lumière sont captés par les plantes et stockés dans les biomolécules d'une haute teneur énergétique - sucres, amidons, huiles..

            Mais nous - nous humains - avons fondé nos technologies modernes sur des sources d'énergie non-renouvelables, qui s'épuisent: pétrole, charbon, gaz.. Et, au lieu de recycler des éléments nutritifs valables, nous les gaspillons en enfouissant nos "déchets" dans des sites d'enfouissement où ils deviennent des toxines qui, tôt ou tard, nous empoisonneront, Sommes-nous fous? La question se pose..

3e pilier de l'économie durable: l'activité économique doit se conformer à des connaissances scientifiques du comportement décisionnel humain, surtout des processus décisionnels portant sur l'activité économique.

            Des recherches récentes sur la prise de décision collective et la responsabilité collective sont révélatrices. Ces expériences utilisent des jeux où on essaie de gagner des jetons (voire de l'argent) donc elle ne font pas appel à des sondages d'opinion, toujours suspect: l'intérêt pécuniaire réel des participants est effectivement en jeu. En dépit du cynisme ambiant, ces essais démontrent que les humains seraient bel et bien capables de bien gérer des ressources renouvelables (forêt, sol arable, stocks de poisson marines..) et de les léguer aux générations futures. Cependant, il faut que le groupe intéressé se mette d'accord sur l'exploitation équitable de la ressource. À cette fin, il faut assigner un adjudicateur, élu démocratiquement, qui assurerait un partage équitable. Dans ces cas, il est possible d'exploiter la ressource sans épuisement. C'est comme si l'on choisit de vivre frugalement sur les intérêts d'un héritage au lieu de délabrer le principal dans le luxe et la débauche.

             Cette recherche sur le comportement économique suggère que l'idéologie du "libre" marché est fictive et fautive: elle conduit à des grabuges dans lesquels tout le monde, surtout les générations futures, perdent.

             Nous sommes alors conduits à des réflexions du genre "oeuf ou poulet" sur la nature même de la démocratie. Démocratie veut dire "le règne du peuple". Mais, toute société a besoin de réguler le comportement de ses membres et de canaliser les instincts et des émotions fortes dans des voies créatrices et harmonisantes. L'homme comme tout primat est un être agressif / craintif qui essaie de monter son statut social, en piétant sur l'autrui si nécessaire. Le Jeu Social consiste à trouver un équilibre vivable entre liberté pour tous et suppression des transgresseurs déstabilisateurs. Un code guerrier peut réguler la vindicte populaire en faisant appel à l'honneur ou au bien commun. La religion dicte des comportements collectifs chez les primitifs - les rites, tout comme les gènes dictent les comportements des collectivités insectes (fourmis, abeilles..)

              Les démocraties modernes sont donc en face d'un dilemme. Si la régulation des comportements (tabous, lois, coutumes, usages..) est nécessaire ET "le peuple est roi", il faut conclure que le peuple doit contrôler leurs régulateurs sociaux qui, ensuite, régulent le peuple! C'est la classique boucle récursive auto-organisatrice: qui vient premier, l'oeuf ou la poule? La société crée des individus qui ensuite créent la société qui crée..

              Nous croyons que ces recherches sur les processus décisionnels collectifs devraient étudier les gains à obtenir par des petites unités "socio-écono-politiques" de nature autogestionnaire et égalitaire: coopératives de production, d'achat ou d'échange; l'économie sociale (note 3),.. 

              Nous constatons que le Pic Pétrolier, en détruisant la base de nos sociétés industrielles - l'énergie fossile à bon marché, favorisera l'éclosion de petites unités socio-écono-politiques (note 4). Il faut admettre que la petite unité sociale est plus naturelle à l'homme. Dès millions d'années, nos ancêtres, proto-humains ou humains, étaient déjà experts de la petite économie, décentralisée, autonome et participative. Les anciens groupes de chasseurs-cueilleurs ne comptaient plus que quelques douzaines à quelques centaines d'individus.

             Nous devrons étudier les déséconomies d'échelle créées par les idéologies du marché "libre" tout en essayant - où possible - de maintenir les économies d'échelle déjà réalisées et qui fonctionnent bien. On note, par exemple, que les technologies avancées - informatique - sont très "concentrant". Elles exigent agglomération, concentration du capital, organisation hiérarchique, planification et gestion centralisées. Mais comment intégrer de telles structures économiques dans le tissu de petites unités socio-écono-politiques, fortement décentralisées, autonomes et égalitaires? C'est pas évident..

4e pilier de l'économie durable: la dimension "morale", "éthique", "religieuse", "théologique", "spirituelle", "transcendante".. Le 3e pilier - la psychologie sociale - nous donne des outils par lesquels réguler nos comportements économiques collectifs. Mais les réguler à quelle(s) fin(s)? Vers quel But Ultime? 

              Comme Socrate et Aristote nous nous devons demander "qu'est-ce que  c'est, une bonne vie, une belle vie, une vie qui vaut la peine d'être vécue?" De telles questions sont dites "ouvertes", voire "incomplètes" ou "subjectives". Du moins, elles n'ont pas de réponse universellement valide pour tous les hommes. Mais - la Divinité est perverse!  - ces questions "ouvertes" - "sans réponse" - sont aussi les plus importantes. Même si elle est guidée par une forte Tradition, chaque génération devrait se poser ces vitales, universelles questions..

              Les réponses à ces questions ouvertes - si provisoires soient-elles - nous fournissent un cadre "humaniste" - voire humanisant - pour évaluer l'activité économique. Elles peuvent donner des sens à l'activité économique plus noble que la simple accumulation. C'est à espérer du moins..

               L'économie durable n'est pas un tabouret à trois pattes. C'est le 4e pilier - le plus subtil et flou - qui, hélas, est le plus important. C'est aussi le plus difficile à faire comprendre à notre culture matérialiste, narcissique et avide de profit (donc "superficielle", manquant sagesse..) Pour nous, le gain à court terme est tout ce qui compte. Nous nous accordons des rangs selon notre consommation ostentatoire des "biens". Ces valeurs sont fausses et sont en train de détruire le monde que nous connaissons..

 

Sommaire: les quatre piliers de l'économie durable sont la conformité aux lois de

- la physique (thermodynamique)

- l'écologie (protection des services écologiques vitaux)

- la psychologie sociale (décision et responsabilité collective) et

- la dimension éthique, spirituelle: la vie bonne, les valeurs qui font vivre

notes

1- système axiomatique: La méthode axiomatique est universellement utilisée en mathématiques. En quoi consiste-t-elle ? Dans un premier temps, elle consiste à énoncer des "vérités premières'', qu'on appelle aussi "postulats'' ou "axiomes''. Ce sont des affirmations que l'on admet sans démonstration puis, dans un deuxième temps, on tire les conséquences logiques de ces axiomes. Lien:

axiomatiques

           La géométrie était traditionnellement organisée comme un système axiomatique. Mais attention! GIGO: garbage in, garbage out. Si l'ordinateur est mal-programmé ou si on l'alimente avec des données fautives ou mal-organisées, il ne sortira qu'ordures. Pareillement, un système axiomatique n'est utile que si ses axiomes - et les relations logiques entre eux - correspondent à quelque réalité "externe". Mais on constate que plusieurs des axiomes de l'économie néo-classique sont fautifs: par exemple, l'idée que la croissance infinie serait possible sur une planète finie. La nouvelle économie devrait corriger ou éliminer ces axiomes fautifs.

             Un autre axiome fautif: les ressources (matières premières) sont interchangeables.C'est faux mais on l'enseigne quand même. Par exemple, l'or est un meilleur conducteur de l'électricité que le cuivre. Mais l'or n'est pas un rechange pour le cuivre: trop rare, cher, mou et pesant. Le cuivre, même si moins bon conducteur que l'or, a la combinaison juste de propriétés physiques et chimiques qui le font un conducteur quasi-idéal donc difficile à trouver remplacements.

2- croissance exponentielle: exemples:  Croissance microbienne. On commence avec une bactérie; elle se divise et ensuite pour chacune  de ses cellules "filles": 1 - 2 - 4 - 8 - 16 - 32 - 64 - 128 - 256 - 512 - 1024.. Il ne faut que dix divisions (générations) de passer d'un microbe à mille (si aucun ne meure).

            Un autre exemple de la croissance exponentielle: croissance de l'intérêt sur un principal. Mettons un capital de $100 et un taux d'intérêt de 10% par année. Après un an, on a le $100 (capital) plus $100 X .10 (intérêt) ou $110. Après deux ans, on a $110 (capital) plus $110 X .10 ou $121. Pour le 3e année: $121 + $121 X .10 ou $133.10.. Notons que l'intérêt pour un année est toujours plus grand que celui de tous les année précédentes. Celui indique, bien sûr, croissance non-soutenable au long terme: dans le cas de microbes - manque de nourriture, pour les intérêts - pas assez d'argent dans le monde! (Pensez à la croissance microbienne: seulement dix générations d'aller d'un microbe à plus que mille..)

3- économie sociale: "L'économie sociale ou économie sociale et solidaire (ESS) regroupe les organisations privées ou publiques (entreprises, coopératives, associations, mutuelles ou fondations) qui cherchent à concilier activité économique et utilité sociale. Ce secteur représentait en 2011 près de 10% des emplois en France.
Les organisations de l'économie sociale adhèrent à des principes fondateurs, parmi lesquels : recherche d'une utilité collective, non-lucrativité ou lucrativité limitée (bénéfices réinvestis au service du projet collectif), gouvernance démocratique (primauté des personnes sur le capital : « 1 personne = 1 voix », implication des parties prenantes)"

exemple: coopérative d'achat / production. Un groupe de citadins ont un contrat avec un ou plusieurs fermiers locaux. Le fermier doit céder un "panier annuel" d'aliments en échange d'un montant d'argent à chacun des membres de la coopérative. 

4- Pic pétrolier: considérons un arbre fruitier plein de fruits en automne. On cueille les fruits sur les branches inférieures parce c'est plus facile. Ensuite il faut monter plus haut, dépenser plus d'énergie avec plus de risque (tomber..) C'est la même chose pour l'exploitation du pétrole - ou n'importe quelle autre ressource non-renouvelable. On exploite les gisements plus proches à la surface. Ensuite, il faut creuser plus profond, dépenser plus d'énergie et d'argent avec plus de risque. On peut calculer le montant d'énergie obtenue par l'extraction et le raffinement du pétrole et le comparer avec le montant d'énergie dépensé à l'extraire. Avec l'épuisement de réservoirs faciles à exploiter, ce rapport va diminuer dans le temps:

1930: 100, 1970: 30, 2010: 8

         Ces chiffres, typiques de la littérature consultée, indiquent qu'en 1930, on obtenait 100 fois plus d'énergie d'un baril de pétrole que l'on a dépensé à le trouver, l'extraire, le raffiner et, enfin, transporter les dérivés transformés (essence, diesel,..) En 80 ans ce rapport d'énergie obtenue / énergie investie a chuté de 100 à 8! Ces chiffres s'appliquent à du pétrole brut pris globalement.

http://www.roperld.com/science/minerals/EROEIFossilFuels.htm

Size counts!

            Neoconservative "Free Market" ideology requires cutting all public sector services to the bone (even necessary regulatory functions like railway safety compliance and food inspection!)

            The results, of course, are pretty much what a non-ideologue (pragmatist) might predict: infrastructure falls apart, public safety and security fall are quietly shelved in the interest of international corporations' bottom line, the educational system goes to hell in a handbasket, life becomes less convenient, dumber, cruder..

             The urge to cut budgets (and corners) can operate on the micro-level as well as the macro. An interesting case of the perverse effects on neocon idiotology is emerging on Montréal Island, Québec. According to a Canadian Broadcasting Corp news release, speaking about the closing of a local police station:

"The borough of Rivière-des-Prairies—Pointe-aux-Trembles currently has two stations: one in RDP and one in PAT. The stations will be merged into one as a cost-cutting measure.
Community leaders say it's a bad idea."

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/rdp-residents-outraged-over-plan-to-close-local-police-station-1.2763929 

             Until 1998, when station 45 was opened in RDP, the ethnically mixed community was prey to street gangs, ethnic tension and petty crime. People were afraid to walk the streets and worried about the kind of environment they were raising their kids in. According to residents interviewed on a morning news program, station 45 changed all that. The police effectively became a unifying force, a respected and admired agent of community cohesion. (Boy, oh boy, when was the last time you heard someone say that about their local cops - Yo!) What I find particularly interesting and which was not addressed in the reportage I heard or read: despite the  substantial rise in community self-confidence and harmony, the actual drop in reported crime was fairly modest, 20%. The suggestion here is that the city got a big, big bang for its buck in installing a police station in an ethnically divided community! (Unfortunately for neocon logic, it's not easy to put a dollar value on things like community spirit and it's long term impact on community development..)

             One of the points stressed by community members was the degree to which having a local police station was critical in establishing a positive rapport between 1- the police and the community and 2- the different ethnic tribes composing the community. The fact that the police were visible and knew people on a face to face basis was considered to be a crucial factor in establishing these positive rapports.

            Here we apparently have a case where the principle "small is beautiful" really works. A smaller, more local, level of organization of police services seems to work better than more integrated, centralized structures (which may be said to fall victim to diseconomies of scale). 

internal blog links: 

keywords: budget cut (13 articles),  deregulation (6 articles)

(There is some overlap between these two groups, some articles are classified under both keywords)
                                      

Do you know a fanatic, are you a fanatic?

           Fanaticism seems in the air of the times: public decapitations on YouTube, various ethno-religious cleansings..

            So how do you do tell a fanatic, then? Perhaps the most concise definition comes from a Mr Robert Reich (in a facebook posting):

"Yesterday I urged you to talk with people who disagree with you. That requires respectful engagement. But I'm not suggesting you waste your time on people who are willfully ignorant. The six signs of willful ignorance:

(1) The person you’re debating uses nastiness as a substitute for thought; 

(2) attacks the source of an argument rather than the argument’s merits; 

(3) claims causation from mere correlation (e.g., a rooster’s crowing makes sun rise); 

(4) disputes facts on which there’s an overwhelming scientific or historical consensus (evolution, climate change, widening inequality, the Holocaust); 

(5) blames or stereotypes entire groups of people; 

(6) repeats the same point without responding to arguments or information you provide.

Did I leave anything out?"

Sociologist Karl Mannheim in Ideology and Utopia: 

"Nothing is more removed from actual events than the closed rational system. Under certain circumstances, nothing contains more intellectual drive than a fully self-contained, intellectualistic world-view"

             A more formal, less descriptive, definition might be extracted from the observations of philosopher and student of political systems, George Sabine:A History of Political Theory (1961), page 924 - 925:

"Yet despite their great and authentic differences, the philosophies of National Socialism and Communism had one characteristic in common. Both have the authentic mark of fanaticism: at some point they became intellectually unapproachable by one who was not a devotee. Both demanded a surrender of critical judgement to blind faith and set up a barrier to communication between insiders and outsiders or between leaders and followers.

.. Government both for National Socialists and for Communists is the control of society by an elite which alone has access to truth and which therefore has the privilege of dictating both behavior and belief."
 
            On the "intellectual unapproachability" of fanatics: the arguments of fanatics often are insulting to reason, human intelligence, even - in extreme cases - to human dignity. Example: the use of ad hominem attacks (character assassination) by GW "sceptics" or deniers. This is a sure sign they have no (or few) valid scientific arguments in their quiver. Greek teachers of rhetoric (public argumentation) rejected the ad hominem as an unworthy tactic 2500 years ago.

George Sabine: A History of Political Theory (1961), page 908

"..scientific refutation is almost powerless against a theory that depends on the will to believe."
 
??? ALMOST powerless you say ??? 

          Prof Sabine's theory of knowledge is worth consulting:

http://ecommons.library.cornell.edu/bitstream/1813/18831/1/Sabine_George_Holland_1961.pdf

              But why this potent "will to believe" in the first place? Why does it exist? What "Darwinian survival value" could such a "will to believe" (what is patently false) possibly hold?

              We can only speculate about the reasons that evolution would create such a will, leaving it to social scientists to devise experiments which may answer this question. One such attempt was the work by psychologist Leon Festinger in his theory of cognitive dissonance.

               Festinger speculates that we all carry a "road map of reality" around in our heads which tells us "how the world works", who or what is friendly or useful, who or what is dangerous. As long as the map works fairly well, most of the time, we are happy. But when consistent information from the exterior world invalidates out internal map, we are confronted with a highly stressful situation. This negative mental / emotional state is "cognitive dissonance": what we believe has become "dissonant" with information arriving from exterior reality. One can argue that cognitive dissonance has long term survival value since it forces us to readjust our reality map to conform better to the real world we are actually experiencing.

               However, different individuals have highly variable tolerance thresholds for cognitive dissonance. If an issue is of great personal importance - such as the security of one's offspring - powerful negative emotions can be generated by strongly dissonant information. Some "high authoritarians" will reject with vehemence - if not violence - conflicting information (and / or the bearers of that information). Witness the incredibly vicious, vituperative fanaticism of some global warming "sceptics" and deniers. (Otherwise, one could only wonder, stupified, how is it possible that so much sheer hatred could be evoked by a rather esoteric aspect of atmospheric physics by members of the public with no formal training in science beyond a high school physics, chemistry and biology!)

 http://web.mst.edu/~psyworld/cognitive_dissonance.htm       

poema: Octavio Paz - dos cuerpos

Octavio Paz: dos cuerpos

Dos cuerpos frente a frente
son a veces dos olas
y la noche es océano.

 

Dos cuerpos frente a frente 

son a veces dos piedras

y la noche desierto.

 Dos cuerpos frente a frente
 son a veces raíces
en la noche enlazadas

 

Dos cuerpos frente a frente

son a veces navajas

y la noche relámpago. 

 Dos curepos frente a frente
son dos astros que caen
en un cielo vacío.