Did you miss me?

[purpletigron]

Just back from a two day Transition Initiatives training course in Totnes.

The concept is very simple:

(1) Our current lifestyles are dependent on a high input flow rate of energy.
(2) We are soon going to need to learn how to live well with lower energy flows - perhaps half the current rate. (The causes will be some complex combination of increasing affluent population in the majority world, global climate change, Peak Oil, Peak Uranium etc., the details of which are a separate discussion).
(3) A carefully designed transition can mean we all maintain or improve our quality of life, with our energy resources invested e.g. in medical infrastructure, where they can do the most good.
(4) Transition Initiatives are a practical, creative, positive and inclusive model for this change.

You can read more at http://www.transitiontowns.org/TransitionNetwork/TransitionTraining and elsewhere on that site, and http://transitionculture.org/ (Rob Hopkins blog).

Comments

[drplokta]

Point 3 is the big problem. The history of the 20th century has pretty much proved that central planning of the use of resources is horribly inefficient and produces extremely sub-optimal outcomes. Why is everyone suddenly deciding that central planning of where energy is used is the way forward, rather than introducing some market mechanism to allow people to decide for themselves whether they want to spend limited energy resources on medical infrastructure or if they'd rather spend them on holidays in Spain, or incandescent light bulbs?

[purpletigron.livejournal.com]

I didn't notice any mention of central planning in what I wrote - who is everyone?

Truly careful planning would take place at the most appropriate level of decentralisation, I should think. This particular network certainly encourages people to work on whatever is their appropriately local level at the current time.

No reason why people couldn't choose to use their own fair share of the energy for pleasure. As a guide, roughly half our current per capita energy use goes on shared infrastructure (whether commercial, municipal or social).

[drplokta]

A "carefully designed transition" implies central planning to me. How can you design a transition without it? What we need is a chaotic and disorganised transition, which is fortunate, as that's indubitably what we're going to get.

[revdode.livejournal.com]

Yes.

The course sounds interesting.

Hope was what attracted me to permaculture.

[purpletigron.livejournal.com]

It is! and, likewise.

[sci.livejournal.com]

It would occur to me that one of the big problems is working around the industrial mindset. A world where increased production efficiency has not led to the same amount being produced in a shorter time, and more free time for all, but the same amount being produced in a shorter time, and more stuff being produced in the same amount of time. A continual push not to decrese workload, but increase production.
Because which option will lead to a sucessfull business?

Convincing people to "go backwards" in terms of energy usage will be very difficult, because as long as the energy is there, people will use it to its limits. It's why I fear someone might suceed in producing a new high-yield energy source such as fusion. If it happens before we learn power moderation, suddenly any concideration for it's use will go out the window, and it'll take another 50years while people fuss over whether light, sound or EM polution are really something we should bother doing something about.
The steady decline in oil reserves will put the nessesary slow pressure on. Any sudden tech-jumps as above will ruin the outcome.

Sorry, wandered off topic..

[purpletigron.livejournal.com]

Well, high oil prices could change commercial attitudes ... and Peak Oil geophysics predicts that oil production steadily declines after about half the total world oil resource has been extracted.