Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

RE: [The Commons] Critique on Amory Lovins / RMI

Expand Messages
  • Tom Wayburn
    Hi Eric, I have had a go at the Amory Lovins brand of idiocy before. The paper “The Demise of Business as Usual ”
    Message 1 of 4 , Feb 26, 2008
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment

      Hi Eric,

       

      I have had a go at the Amory Lovins brand of idiocy before.  The paper “The Demise of Business as Usual” was written to apply the remarks in “On the Conservation-within-Capitalism Scenario” to The Apollo Alliance, which Mike Ruppert and Dale Allen Pfeiffer wanted to shoot down; but, it could be made to apply to Amory Lovins mutatis mutandis, which we can let the intelligent reader do for himself.

       

      Essentially it’s this:  Lovins and his ilk know about Peak Oil but nothing about Maximum Renewables, which they leave out of account in operating a market system, which is certain to be energy intensive.  They don’t seem to understand that every economic transaction has energy consequences; and, in particular, in a market economy, it must bear the huge cost of commerce.  Just ask yourself how many people you know who produce the things we need to live rather than transfer money to themselves or their employers.  If you leave healthcare out of account, which is a peculiar artifice of the diseased capitalist economies, you will get a more realistic answer of how much energy can be saved.

       

      To drive home this observation, I wrote “Energy in a Mark II Economy”, which provides an Excel spreadsheet for an economy that is simple but complicated enough to illustrate my point – perhaps even prove my point.

       

      Tom Wayburn, Houston , Texas
      http://dematerialism.net/

       

       


      From: the-commons@yahoogroups.com [mailto: the-commons@yahoogroups.com ] On Behalf Of eric.britton
      Sent: Monday, February 25, 2008 11:39 AM
      To: NewMobilityCafe@yahoogroups.com; The-commons@yahoogroups.com
      Cc: BE.Buscher@...
      Subject: [The Commons] Critique on Amory Lovins / RMI

       

      Der Colleagues,

      This commentary which just slipped in over the transom is something that I share with you not to demean the intelligence or good intentions of Amory Lovins as a person or thinker, but because the rather vigorous author -- to my mind -- puts his finger right on a very important weak point in the present sustainability debate. Other than that let me give the stage to the author for his trenchant commentary.

      Eric Britton

      From: Bram Büscher [mailto:BE.Buscher@ FSW.VU.NL]

      Sent: 25 February 2008 03:23

      To: EANTH-L@LISTSERV. UGA.EDU

      Subject: [Spam] Critique on Amory Lovins / RMI

       

      Dear All,

      I was at the Berlin conference of the Human Dimensions of Global Change yesterday and attended a (video conference) presentation by dr. Amory Lovins of the Rocky Mountain institute. I have seen few people so bluntly reduce all environmental problems (and the politics around it) to technological fetishes (apparently accessible to all?).

      He also advocated another book of his and colleagues entitled 'Natural Capitalism' that again combines all the good and the ugly into a 'profitable' 'win-win' mix for all of humankind and nature... On the website of the book (natcap.org) it says that they want to publish cheers and jeers, but that 'so far, the book has received almost pure praise and that frankly, this is a bit embarrassing' .

      Now, personally, I cannot imagine this, and wonder whether anybody on the list has some suggestions for critical literature/articles . Basically, I'm looking for some more practical armour in the face of people who so optimistically go about selling such grand illusions.

      Thanks,

      Bram

    • Lee Schipper
      Less of a resource THAN otherwise, easy to show. Less absolutely..harder to show..wait, let me look for my buggy-whip. In other words, the less has to be
      Message 2 of 4 , Feb 26, 2008
      View Source
      • 0 Attachment
        Less of a resource THAN otherwise, easy to show.
        Less absolutely..harder to show..wait, let me look for my buggy-whip.

        In other words, the "less" has to be framed as "less than otherwise". And the "led to" martin mentions implies causality, as if more efficiency CAUSED more use than otherwise. There are examples in both directions. Insulate fairly modern homes and the occupants use less fuel for heating THAN OTHEWRISE,. Insulate poorly insulated homes of low income people and the occupants may use MORE heat than before their houses were insulated (Scott 1980; Scott and Capper 1982) because of very complex income, price, and utility effects.

        For transport, well, ah um its more complex when time becomes more valuable than fuel and so it goes.



        Lee Schipper
        EMBARQ Fellow
        EMBARQ, the WRI Center for Sustainable Transport
        www.embarq.wri.org
        and
        Visiting Scholar
        UC Transportation Center
        Berkeley CA USA www.uctc.net
        skype: mrmeter
        +1 510 642 6889
        Cell +1 202 262 7476


        -----Original Message-----
        From: the-commons@yahoogroups.com [mailto:the-commons@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of martin.strid@...
        Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2008 6:34 AM
        To: the-commons@yahoogroups.com
        Subject: SV: [The Commons] Critique on Amory Lovins / RMI

        
        I defy you to show me one instance where a more resource efficient technology has led to less use of resources and not to increased use of technology.

        Amike vin salutas

        #ЄЭ#
        Martin Strid

        ´´·.¸¸.·´¯` ·.¸¸.·´´·.¸¸.·´¯` ·.¸
        ´´·.¸¸.·´¯` ·.¸¸.·´´·.¸¸.·´¯` ·.¸
        http://2-2.se <http://2-2.se/>


        ________________________________

        Från: the-commons@yahoogroups.com [mailto:the-commons@yahoogroups.com] För eric.britton
        Skickat: den 25 februari 2008 18:39
        Till: NewMobilityCafe@yahoogroups.com; The-commons@yahoogroups.com
        Kopia: BE.Buscher@...
        Ämne: [The Commons] Critique on Amory Lovins / RMI



        Der Colleagues,

        This commentary which just slipped in over the transom is something that I share with you not to demean the intelligence or good intentions of Amory Lovins as a person or thinker, but because the rather vigorous author -- to my mind -- puts his finger right on a very important weak point in the present sustainability debate. Other than that let me give the stage to the author for his trenchant commentary.

        Eric Britton

        From: Bram Büscher [mailto:BE.Buscher@... <mailto:BE.Buscher@...> ]

        Sent: 25 February 2008 03:23

        To: EANTH-L@...

        Subject: [Spam] Critique on Amory Lovins / RMI



        Dear All,

        I was at the Berlin conference of the Human Dimensions of Global Change yesterday and attended a (video conference) presentation by dr. Amory Lovins of the Rocky Mountain institute. I have seen few people so bluntly reduce all environmental problems (and the politics around it) to technological fetishes (apparently accessible to all?).

        He also advocated another book of his and colleagues entitled 'Natural Capitalism' that again combines all the good and the ugly into a 'profitable' 'win-win' mix for all of humankind and nature... On the website of the book (natcap.org) it says that they want to publish cheers and jeers, but that 'so far, the book has received almost pure praise and that frankly, this is a bit embarrassing'.

        Now, personally, I cannot imagine this, and wonder whether anybody on the list has some suggestions for critical literature/articles. Basically, I'm looking for some more practical armour in the face of people who so optimistically go about selling such grand illusions.

        Thanks,

        Bram
      • Kevin Gaudette
        Hi Eric, Here s another perspective, dealing specifically with the issue: In terms of the despiritualization of the universe, the mental process works so that
        Message 3 of 4 , Feb 29, 2008
        View Source
        • 0 Attachment
          Hi Eric,

          Here's another perspective, dealing specifically with the issue:

          In terms of the despiritualization of the universe,
          the mental process works so that it becomes virtuous
          to destroy the planet.
          Terms like progress and development are used as cover words here,
          the way victory and freedom are used to discover butchery
          in the dehumanization process...

          Most important here, perhaps, is that
          the Europeans  feel no sense of loss in all this.
          After all, their philosophers have despiritualized reality...

          All European theory, Marxism included,
          has conspired to defy the natural order of things.
          Mother Earth has been abused,
          the powers have been abused,
          and this cannot go on forever.

          No theory can alter that simple fact.

          Mother Earth will retaliate,
          the whole environment will retaliate,
          and the abusers will be eliminated.

          Things come full circle,
          back to where they started.
          That's revolution.

          And that's a prophecy of my people,
          of the Hopi people
          and of other peoples.


          Where White Men Fear to Tread
          Russell Means
          (voice of the Father, in Pocahantas)

          Kevin Gaudette
          Hangzhou
          www.chinatefl.com






        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.