hey robert, see my reply at organizer HQ

A huge question for biofuels is: what plant should be used?

I find ethanol in general to be unfeasible. At some point, cellulosic ethanol may be feasible. But for now, ethanol is not helping. And making it out of food, ridiculous. Making it of our excess corn problem, the same. See The Omnivore's Dilemma for more on that. Switchgrass may be an option, but again, this is something to look into once the environmental impacts are lessened.

Cutting down the forests to plant biofuel crops is like cutting off your feet to save weight in a run.

I read the book Biodiesel Power, it was a great read. But biodiesel as it currently stands seems lacking as an answer. Because even making it from recycled grease would not provide recycled biodiesel on the scale we need.

What does seem promising is the algae farming option. As it could be produced by submerging some tanks in the ocean and putting in some (hopefully) environmentally friendly feedstock. This process could yield 250 gallons per acre, as opposed to 47 or so for soy. And those acres wouldn't take away from food crops.

For specific thoughts on cars see the Hypercar group.

Tipping points abound: oil, climate, water.

Peak oil will be the tipping point of cheap petrol. A wonderful book, A Thousand Barrels a Second, on peak oil speaks to the "economic restructuring" that is guaranteed to occur when we hit peak oil. The book shows how that after the 1973 oil shock, our energy infrastructure was rebalanced so that for every output in our economy, fewer fossil fuel inputs were required. The economies in Europe and Japan get quite a few more outputs per fossil fuel input than in the U.S.

The problem is that a restructuring historically takes 10-15 years, and involves some economic dissolution due to continued reliance on a now vastly more expensive energy input.

We need to make the switch before peak oil, to say nothing of the climate crisis, because the vast majority of Americans who rely on the auto will see their disposable income plummet. This will be harmful to the economy, and switching to renewables will insulate us from deterrents to long term growth. Not that I am an advocate for growth. But even the deniers ought to be able to understand this language.

So vastly reducing our dependence on oil need not even need to bring the climate crisis into the conversation. But of course, given that the continued quality of life for all humans for the foreseeable future is on the line, I'm tend to think we should do something climate change yesterday.

Tipping points are interesting things, as Paul writes so well about in The Ecology of Commerce. Here's a previous meditation of mine on ecological vs. societal tipping points:

Ecosystems are not linear systems. Neither are human societies. They are both complex systems, and I will posit here that they function in a similar manner.

Ecosystems tend to accept pollutants and continue functioning until a certain threshold is reached, the tipping point. Once this point is reached the system quickly deteriorates, often with positive feedback, meaning degradation begets degradation.

An example we all remember from An Inconvenient Truth is that as polar ice melts, there is less ice to reflect away the sun, meaning that the remaining ice melts faster.

It certainly seems reasonable to assume that our climate system works in the same way.

Yet, given all that we know, our society has not reached a point where it will commit to solving this problem. Our society still has a great inertia traveling in the direction of fossil fuels, inefficiency, and pollution. Our collective minds, thus, have a resistance to accepting this change of consciousness due to this societal inertia.

Hope resides in the capacity for this film to spur movement on the issue. When sufficient momentum is achieved we will break through this societal inertia, the societal tipping point. When we have passed this tipping point, people will not be satisfied with half-measures and placating solutions. This is the most important movement of a generation, critical mass is not a question of if but when.

The biggest question our culture has ever faced:

Will the societal tipping point precede the climate's tipping point?


Also, see a an interesting article on the gap between politics and reality by Bill McKibben
http://stepitup2007.org/article.php?id=522

Bowo,

As long is it follows the content standards, you should post any and everything you want on this site. The more information, the beter. Sounds like a resource so click add a resource on the left navigation.

peace
dan;el

Hi Charles,

I have just a couple of suggestions for you, but if you find out more please post it here or in a discussion because I would like to learn more. The organization My Climate might have some info for you. Also check out the for-profit Chicago Climate Exchange at chicagoclimatex.com

cheers

Your organization looks fantastic,

I really dig trail riding and biking instead of driving, and I support the local volunteer bike shop near where I live.
In response to your question, I would recommend that you search for other bike shops like yours on the database and ask them how they've acquired funding. You could also search foundations and see what type of orgs they want to give their money to, and see if your work fits that criteria. Another avenue to meet people interested in the subject would be to form a discussion in the forums on non-profit bike shops. You could also go to the sustainable transportation portal and post a comment. Also you could update your information in this listing and use this space to tell your story in full. You can edit this page as much as you want with pictures, text, links, etc. This would increase the likelihood that a funder looking at this page would be more apt to contact you or just skip right to clicking the donate now button. You could also point people toward the site, have them create personal profiles and add your org to their network, this would also show funders that there are people who are interested and who care.
Good luck using the site and with your bike shop.

peace
dan;el

Hi,

You did a fantastic job on this entry! However, there was already an entry for it. So I marked this one as duplicate to direct people to the other one.

peace
dan;el

This topic was brought up recently, and I would like to add it to the new discussion forum. Here is a transcript of the conservation.

Dear WiserEarthfolk,

I am curious to know what you think of the term "Alternative Medicine"?

I have not yet found the term that seems just right to me. I do think that calling our approach to health and illness "alternative" makes the current conventional system "normal" and "standard." As a naturopathic physican and acupuncturist, I know very well that all of the vitalist, holistic, natural medicine practices listed at the top of the page are not (yet!) fully integrated into the mainstream of (Western) conventional medicine -- but I see signs that we are headed that way, as practitioners and systems of all kinds come together in service to life and wholeness.

What do you think?

Christy Lee-Engel
Seattle, WA

___

Great point Christy,

I agree that the "alternative" is likely a better approach than the current medical system, and that the nomenclature may not reflect that. I think the name does imply that the current system is the "standard" and that its "normal" for people to be treated in that way. Yet, I do not think this necessarily implies that it is "right" or "better."
An simple example would be organic vs. conventional produce. Conventional produce is exactly that, the way things are done on balance. Yet anyone who is well informed on these issues would understand that what is often done is not best for people and planet.
Do you have any suggestions for a new name? Lets start a discussion.
-dan;el (teaching yoga tonight, going to talk about prana :)

____

Hi Daniel,

I agree, "conventional" does not mean "best" or "most appropriate" -- and organic is a nice example of a description that pertains more to what what it is, rather than to where it stands in comparison to the current established model.

The thing about medicine/healthcare is, though, that there is a lot that is very valuable about current modern technological medicine -- that's also why "alternative medicine" is a problematic term, since it seems to imply that a person needing care would have to choose only one or the other. "Integrative medicine" is an interesting, often beneficial , development (and sometimes really it's just a marketing phrase) that aims to weave together technological medicine and nature-based medicine.

Still, I think that the nature-honoring, restorative approaches deserve their own particular descriptive name -- and I haven't come up with one yet! Since you are a yoga teacher, I'm guessing that you are also familiar with Ayurveda, which means "the Science of Life" and is a term that so far comes closest to what it is that I think we're doing (a favorite teacher of mine calls it all "perennial medicine," which I also love, but that requires a little more explanation)

thanks for playing with me on this!

Christy

____

That is a great distinction. In our polar culture we tend to automatically classify things as one or the other. It seems that ignoring the vast wealth of accumulated knowledge and experience in either system would be detrimental.
I am familiar with Ayurveda, I've had friends go to the Maharishi school in Fairfield, IA for diet/health consultations. Interesting stuff. And I've had my share of kitcheri and neti pots.
-dan;el

___

Neti lota nasal lavage! That is one of my top ten prescriptions, here in the lush Pacific Northwest where we've got lots and lots of pollen, and lots of mold, too.

In the naturopathic tradition, we map the therapeutic strategies of all the healing systems into a hierarchy, like a ladder (or, my preference, a big leafy tree). The foundational level corresponds to "First Do No Harm" and trust in the healing power of nature, and includes those therapies that are broad-based, nourishing, restorative. As we branch farther out, we get to the therapies that are more symptom-specific, with more risk of adverse reaction (all the way out to chemotherapy and radiation therapy, etc).

The key is that every level is appropriate when/if it's the right time.

The art is in discerning what level(s) of support or intervention are appropriate for a particular person in a particular moment.

Chr*sty
;-)

Great point Christy,

I agree that the "alternative" is likely a better approach than the current medical system, and that the nomenclature may not reflect that. I think the name does imply that the current system is the "standard" and that its "normal" for people to be treated in that way. Yet, I do not think this necessarily implies that it is "right" or "better."
An simple example would be organic vs. conventional produce. Conventional produce is exactly that, the way things are done on balance. Yet anyone who is well informed on these issues would understand that what is often done is not best for people and planet.
Do you have any suggestions for a new name? Lets start a discussion.
-dan;el (teaching yoga tonight, going to talk about prana :)

Greetings from Earth, Nuet
A place where people who are studying/working on subjects that cross many disciplines would be a beneficial addition to WiserEarth. I believe that once we have a more complex discussion forum, users will be able to create meeting places around issues like those that interest you.
peace,
dan;el