a link – first of many? And an update

Interest.co.nz bravely took this piece, which I hope is the first of many.

http://www.interest.co.nz/opinion/64094/murray-grimwood-calls-more-fundamental-debate-our-energy-use-and-sources-says-if-it-wa

It generated a lot of comment traffic, think I’ll drop one in about fortnightly, will link to it here (if I can scrounge Jennie’s t-stick, my land-line is now so slow that it won’t do wordpress).

The other moves – pushing the media and asking the hard questions of some folk who don’t want to articulate the answers – proceeds slowly. Have to be careful; these are big boys, with a lot to lose. More soon.

Otherwise, Zeb and I are being sustainable, and it’s hard work. Goats out, 3 lots of chickens now, glasshouses to water and pick from, produce to collect, store, systems to keep going, friends to nurture. Went to a Climate Change lecture/q&a recently, first time I’ve heard EROEI mentioned – hat-tip to Janet Stephenson – so maybe we’re getting there, I sense a groundswell of folk who ‘know’ too.

Interesting times!

Advertisements

Kim Hill again – was there no good reporting in the week between?

I’ve said it before – we have only one reporter in this country, who ‘gets it. There are plenty of others who could be called ‘intelligent’, and to that could be added ‘enough’. They could get there IF THEY SO CHOSE.

In that list, I include Jim Mora, who’s pathetic Panel efforts this last week just make you wonder. The question about those folk – and I regard Mora as at least as cognitively-capable as me – is whether they are totally knowing but in denial, or seriously capable of genuine between-the-ears cognitive dissonance.

I’ve mentioned Joanne Black (Listener, Panel) in that list before. Opined that “I think there are too many people in the world”. Good on you Joanne, I urged at the speakers on the wall – and? Surely the flip-side of ‘too many people’ is ‘not ‘enough resources’. It’s not rocket science. And – if there aren’t enough resources, then the ability of the future to underwrite debt has to be some degree of short-fall. But – she goes on to enthuse about her house (I wouldn’t mind betting it’s old, and unsustainable in energy terms) do-up. Maybe hers was done with cast up-front – but most weren’t.

Closer to home, an ODT (Truth is part of their Mission Statement) man rejected an OP/ED piece from me, because “Folk would choke on their muesli”. That’s a long way from their avowed goal, if my OP/ED contained ‘the truth’.

This morning, Kim did a brilliant wee interview with a 16-year old (after 10.am). So on to it. He understood Peak Oil, realized we had to morph early, If he can do it, so clearly, there is no excuse for Mora. Mora has an obligation (the News of the Day in a Different Way?) to ascertain truth. If public radio can’t do it – who will?

 

Why do I care? Does it matter?  The answer to that is “Do you think our society owes it to future generations to give them a chance at life (not just our standard, but any) or do you think we’ll be extinct at some point, and it doesn’t matter which?”

 

I’d like to have a crack at the first option. It probably has collateral bonuses for almost every other species on the planet too. Roll on the raising of awareness. Roll on more fearless reporting. Good on you, Kim. How long before the ‘silence Lauder’ ethos organizes a ‘silence Kim’ one?

 

 

 

Gwynne Dyer – right on target. But – which cab leaves first?

I’ve long held the view that Climate Change won’t be ‘first cab off the rank’. I see energy constraints and the reducing returns from efficiencies, crashing the growth-requiring financial system. Then – to be honest – I see global war(s) over what is left in the way of physical resources, particularly energy.

Still, Dyer’s ‘climate Wars’ is prominent on our bookshelf. He’s a thoughtful man, and a good read. This is his latest offering:

http://www.odt.co.nz/opinion/opinion/216580/what-make-weather

In a newspaper which champions growth, and has ‘truth’ in its Mission Statement.

Go figure.

Kim Hill – brave. Guy McPherson. Brave too. Radionz Saturday 11.05

Well done Kim Hill. Easily the smartest Journo in the country, and the only one going anywhere near the truth of what is hitting us.

McPherson could be Jennie and I. No difference = or bugger-all – when you work it out. Like Orlov, he understands Jevons:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox

very well, and suggests that a fast crash will leave more chance for those who follow. Some folk complained that Hill chopped-in too often – but they will be those who understand, and who wanted to listen to one of their own kind. Interviewing – from a basis of ‘extracting the truth’ – needs to ask the hard questions, and attempt the trip-up. His reply re flying (you used fossil fuels to get here) was classic. How can we have a country being removed from the truth (NIWA / Lauder silencing / Steven Joyce / Tertiary ‘funding’) and yet there is the information, on National Radio.

Clearly, the current Govt can’t have such comments going mainstream – imaging the consternation: “You mean my mortgage won’t be repaid, my investments will be worth progressively less, and I won’t get a pension?”  Watch for National Ratio to get knobbled soon. Can’t have this truth stuff getting about, now, can we?

 

Fairfax – the future of truth…?

So we’re morphing from traditional Editors, and physical papers. Partly that is the ‘Net taking over, in the way it has taken over from traditional Post. Partly it’s a generation moving on, and a culture change. The big societal danger is in the latter – dumbed-down  flat-screen-watching short-soundbyte absorbing high-opinion-of-self (compared to nature, the planet, other species/biota) consumers.

They will now go to the Net for their info. So what? Newspapers were guilty of bias, ignorance and obfuscation before the Net – our own ODT being a classic example. (An outfit with ‘Truth’ in its mission statement – but an OP/ED of mine binned, because ‘the readers would choke on their muesli’. If my op/ed was the ‘truth’, that reply didn’t live up to the mission statement…..).

So presumably we will get more ‘Stuff’ and Huffington-type offerings online. Supported by advertising – which begs the question: how many site-owners (keen to pay their mortgages like everyone else) will make sure they don’t upset their advertisers. Deeper, how many will fail to challenge a system which in itself (advertising to gain profit which will be spent thus generating growth) is unsustainable?

Or does it matter. That isn’t being addressed now. Newspapers full of pages of Real Estate, cars, insert handouts….. they don’t challenge the regime now.

But – we have to have the debate, or society goes off the cliff – resource-depletion until we die off quick-time en-masse. The media is/was the only stage on which to have that debate. Maybe, both formats cannot survive the peak of ‘growth’, and the funding collapse for both advertising and lobbying/spin, will remove the problem. I doubt it – my pick is that the poor will fall off the list first, the powerful will hang on longest, thus the lobbying/spinning will outlast those who seek and proffer the truth.

Ha – it’s probably always been that way. Flat Earth, Eternal damnation, unending economic growth – the mass have always swallowed what they’re given, and lynched/pilloried the Cassandras and the Galileos.

Time for an online Mediawatch, methinks. Something to keep them honest…..

Dyer – ain’t that the truth (on global water/irrigation)

http://www.odt.co.nz/opinion/opinion/173013/water-woes-will-mean-food-calamity.

 

It’s becoming official

http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/features/2011/07/201172081613634207.html