07.05.09
Posted in Activism, Commentary, Current Events, Environment, Sustainability at 4:04 pm by Christina
If you visited any of the links in Part One: The Problem of Peak Oil – or perhaps even if you didn’t – you likely noticed that being aware of peak oil is scary; doomers and survivalists abound. James Howard Kunstler writes his commentary under the heading “Clusterfuck Nation”. If I wasn’t horrified enough by the dramatic realities of peak oil, it didn’t take long to notice that the petroleum crisis isn’t happening in a vacuum. Woven together with peak oil are crises of climate change, financial collapse, water and land degradation, food declines, overpopulation: together, Richard Heinberg’s “peak everything”.
Acceptance takes time. Surely there must be some way out? Solar and wind will save the world? Unfortunately, alternative energies are oil-dependent. Solar and wind technologies are capable of producing electricity; they are not capable of generating enough power to reproduce themselves. In other words, you can’t use a solar panel or wind turbine to make a new solar panel or wind turbine. We’d need to dedicate all our remaining hydrocarbon resources to the manufacture of alternative energy installations. Furthermore, the energy returned on energy invested (EROEI) is dramatically lower for alternative energies than for petroleum. In 1930 petroleum had an EROEI of 100:1, meaning it took one barrel of oil to mine one hundred new barrels; by 1970 it was 30:1 and in 2000 it had declined to 11:1. (The first petroleum gushed out; what’s around now is harder to bring out and harder to process into usable fuels.) (Energy Bulletin: The Net Hubbert Curve by David Murphy) Energy alternatives, green or not – solar, nuclear, geothermal, etc. – top out at about 10:1 EROEI. That means we would have to create up to 1000% value in alternative energy sources in order to match the 1930s petroleum level that drove the height of the industrial complex; right now non-hydrocarbon energies total only 13% (Figure 2, International Energy Outlook 2009 by the US Dept. of Energy). The arithmetic is a little offputting, isn’t it? And it doesn’t even begin to tackle the enormous challenge of transportation in this age of globalization; the challenges to alternative energy there are, as my middle child says, “gi-normous”.
All I know is, things must be really bad if the energy companies are actually advertising to get people to purchase less of their product – i.e., to consume less energy: Chevron’s Will You Join Us? campaign My reading has made it clear that absent an eleventh hour, miraculous scientific or technological discovery (notice the oxymoron), peak oil is unresolvable.
Thank goodness for the peak oil optimists. These folks acknowledge that peak oil and parallel crises are going to mean “the end of the world as we know it” (lightheartedly called Camp TEOTWAWKI), but refuse to countenance a true apocalypse. They devote themselves to the hard work of modeling low-energy, self-sufficient, cooperative living, promoting real peak oil solutions and strategies, and helping increasingly aware people like me and perhaps you move past peak oil denial and grief into functional adaptive work.
Sharon Astyk is foremost among peak oil optimists. A college friend pointed me to Sharon’s blog, Causabon’s Book (an obscure George Eliot reference from this former English Lit. graduate student), where I was able to glimpse past the dark curtain of peak everything into the world that can exist on the other side. Depletion and Abundance, Sharon’s first book, is about petroleum depletion and the full life that can be had under peak oil conditions. It can’t be full of Lunchables, international travel, or on-demand cosmetic surgery (I’m pretty bummed about one of those); but it isn’t empty. In fact, Astyk’s vision of post-peak life is filled with many of those things most people value: productive work, close communities, health and well-being. The simple answer is that we need to redefine what those things are.
Sharon’s vision resonates with me; I think it’s because we both have children at home. If you peruse peak oil literature, you will find the presence of children a rare thing; and their presence correlates strongly to an optimistic, hard-working vision of post-peak. The doomers don’t have children and they don’t seem to care about the seventh generation or even the first generation out from peak. That’s not for me! Sharon took her family to a farm in the poorest county in upstate New York. (Coincidentally, I’ve an aunt who did the same thing in the same county after she retired from teaching.) Through her farm Sharon is able to directly model one possible post-peak lifestyle. It’s not the only possibility, though, and she tackles others via her online course “Adapting in Place”. One’s post-peak vision might include relocation to a farm, as Sharon’s did; but then again, it might not.
The common thread among all the lifestyles Sharon discusses is the low-energy reality of the post-peak world. The reduction in or loss of cross-country and international shipping, giant tractors and combines, and agricultural chemicals means the answer includes local, organic, hands-on food production. No gasoline for automobiles means the answer includes feet, bikes, and possibly electric-powered public transportation (if we get both transit networks and non-fossil electricity production on the agenda soon enough, like yesterday). The absence of Ecuadoran beef or bananas may seem like a loss, but what about the abundance of good health that takes its place because of well-grown seasonal food and regular exercise?
The blogging community has been a tremendous boon for peak oil aware folks. The internet is one thing they’re all willing to keep electrified, or at least to bike into the library to access! I made a peak oil post to my homeschoolers’ groups and got a 1% response; when a group is that small, it’s hard to network with each other for support. It’s so necessary to have support when most of the world looks at you with a blank expression. Besides moral support, the peak oil community is so generous with practical and informational support as well. Sharon Astyk offers not only the Adapting in Place class, but also a class on food storage and preservation and two different ones on garden design.
The second blog I read regularly is One Green Generation, written by Melinda in Seattle. I don’t remember how I got to Melinda’s blog, and she is peak oil aware – but peak oil is not her point. Her point is sustainable living. Melinda writes posts that help troubleshoot difficult adaptations, hosts challenges that encourage positive changes, and generally provides a forum for people tackling the same difficult adjustments. As an urbanite, her perspective is different from Sharon’s while reinforcing the same shared values and purpose.
The last peak oil blog I read regularly is Peak Oil Blues by Kathy McMahon. This “Peak Shrink” is a clinical and teaching psychologist and chicken farmer who offers, essentially, free therapy to the peak community via her blog “couch”. Whatever I’m feeling about peak oil, chances are someone has written her a letter about it and she’s responded with solid advice about how to embrace the feeling and convert it into productive action. Peak oil is an emotional rollercoaster; a lot of days I can be productive, and then one day I’m on the couch burying my face in mass-market paperbacks and industrial strength junk food. The Peak Shrink helps get me back on track.
It’s amazing to me, the generosity of others. So much time and energy goes into the process of these writings – not just Sharon’s full-fledged books, but every blog post these people write. Although my first glimpse of peak oil was like a bucket of ice water in the face, now that I’ve caught my breath it’s nice to know there are plenty of people offering towels. Although the doomers and survivalists can be compellingly hypnotic with their apocalyptic visions, the calm, practical words of people like Sharon, Melinda and Kathy confirm for me that we can convert the apocalyptic visions into hallucinations if we turn ourselves to the work.
To be continued in Part Three: Finding the Answers.
Permalink
07.02.09
Posted in Activism, Commentary, Current Events, Environment, Sustainability at 4:04 pm by Christina
A year ago, I learned about peak oil. Peak oil is the point in time when maximum production (extraction) of petroleum occurs. There is a peak because petroleum is, practically speaking, a finite and non-renewable resource. (Petroleum is technically renewable; it just takes millions of years and precise geologic conditions to create it.) Energy Bulletin has a good peak oil primer. The term “peak oil” has a specific scientific meaning; as a concept, “peak oil” refers more generally to the imminent decline in the availability of fossil fuel energies.
Peak oil is not something universally acknowledged. As with climate change, though, the majority of scientists admit the geologic reality of the decline of fossil fuels and argue only about the shape of the graph.
The challenge of peak oil comes in the form of our consumption of and dependence upon fossil fuels. In the rich world, demand for and consumption of fossil fuels has increased annually to catch up with supplies over the last 150 years. Liquid hydrocarbons (petroleum, aka crude oil) as well as the various natural gases have been so abundant and are so chemically useful that commerce and industry have derived hundreds of thousands of products from them:
- plastics in every room of every home, office and factory
- synthetic fibers like nylon and polyester for clothes, carpeting
- pharmaceuticals and other medical applications
- fertilizers and pesticides for food production
- asphalt and other construction products
- manufacturing components
and so forth.
These end-use products are highly visible to us, but of course hydrocarbons are overwhelming consumed as combustible fuels, either in fuel tanks of cars, tractors and airplanes, or when powering the conversion of other resources into consumable products: cotton into the clothes I’m wearing, or silicon into the computer chips powering my laptop.
Citizens of rich countries have learned to consume fossil fuel as if it were alcohol and they college students on spring break. We live many miles from friends and family and our jobs, and count it as nothing because we can hop in the car or book a flight. Our consumption is not only metaphorical; our agricultural system uses ten calories of fossil fuel energy to produce one calorie of food energy, making our consumption literal as well. I have read estimates that our individual hydrocarbon consumption is equivalent to harnessing the labor energy of one hundred or more human slaves. Fossil fuels are not necessary for human survival; hundreds of thousands of years of human existence proves that. But we are as practically and psychologically dependent on them as any addict is to their drug.
Peak oil would present a challenge at our current consumption and dependence levels. But those levels are not peaking; they are rising. India and China, with one-third of the global population, have the steepest consumption curves as their economies strive for U.S. levels; no country has a falling consumption curve. With peak production upon us, supplies will decrease against rising consumption.
How we handle that gap will determine our future.
To be continued in Part Two: Looking for the Way Out.
Resources on peak oil:
Permalink
03.07.08
Posted in Activism, Articles, Commentary, Current Events, Education, Homeschooling at 4:05 pm by Christina
A ruling came out of California’s Second Appellate Court last week, in re Rachel L., that if read quite broadly, denies everyone but credentialed teachers the right to homeschool their children in this state:
“California courts have held that under provisions in the Education Code, parents do not have a constitutional right to home school their children. Thus, while the petition for extraordinary writ asserts that the trial court’s refusal to order attendance in a public or private school was an abuse of discretion, we find the refusal was actually an error of law. It is clear to us that enrollment and attendance in a public full-time day school is required by California law for minor children unless (1) the child is enrolled in a private full-time day school and actually attends that private school, (2) the child is tutored by a person holding a valid state teaching credential for the grade being taught, or (3) one of the other few statutory exemptions to compulsory public school attendance (Ed. Code, § 48220 et seq.) applies to the child.” (page 3)
In California, there is no “homeschooling”. There is public schooling, compulsory attendance to which is required of children aged 6 to 18; and there are a few exemptions to compulsory attendance. The pertinent exemptions from this case are listed in Ed. Code Section 48220ff. Children can be exempted from attendance by one of two paths: credentialed tutoring or private schooling. The tutoring exemption is very specific, requiring an appropriate state credential as well as regulated hours of instruction. The private school exemption (48222 in the above link) is far more general:
- “Children who are being instructed in a private full-time day school by persons capable of teaching shall be exempted.”
- Teaching must be in English, with certain exceptions.
- The school must “offer instruction in the several branches of study required to be taught in the public schools.”
- Attendance must be kept, including all absences half a day or greater.
The exemption is valid after the attendance supervisor or similarly designated official confirms that the private school is in compliance with Section 33190, the private school affidavit statute, which requires an annual filing with the state. (In practice, I don’t believe any district verifies the private school exemption proactively for every private school student; that would be incredibly costly in staff and funding each year. The exemption is only verified if an attendance challenge is made.) Interestingly,
“The verification required by this section shall not be construed as an evaluation, recognition, approval, or endorsement of any private school or course.” (48222 again)
This is echoed in 33190:
“Filing pursuant to this section shall not be interpreted to mean [legal jargon about what "mean" means] … that the State of California, the Superintendent of Public Instruction [etc.] … has made any evaluation, recognition, approval, or endorsement of the school or course … “
These clauses emphasize the determination of the state to avoid interference in the educational operations of private schools. Private schools are therefore free to pursue with broad discretion the type of education they choose, both in content and in methodology. A school is free to teach young earth creationism or to implement the free democratic school philosophy (e.g. Sudbury Valley or Summerhill strategy), or other content or methodology as they wish.
In practice, the combination of the private school exemption and the very limited private school regulations (essentially an hour or two of paperwork each year for a tiny, two-student school such as I operate) have formed the foundation for independent homeschooling in this state. There is nothing in California law, statutory or judicial, that restricts the establishment of a private school as done by homeschoolers here. No law
- says a private school can’t be located in a private residence.
- says a private school must charge tuition.
- says a private school must have a minimum number of students.
- says a private school teacher can’t instruct their own child(ren). (In fact, the criminal background check provision for school personnel states explicitly that it is waived for a parent working exclusively with their own child(ren).)
- says a private school can’t have one adult who is principal, faculty and staff simultaneously.
Although the recent ruling has every homeschool e-list in the state, and many more around the country, wildly abuzz with strategic discussion and well-informed indignation, in a strict reading the Second Appellate Court has changed only one aspect of California’s education law. In a Bill Clinton-esque (someone else’s beautifully appropriate adjective) application of semantics, the private school exemption statute was interpreted to mean that a student must be in physical attendance at the private school:
“Section 48222 provides an exemption from compulsory public school education for ‘[c]hildren who are being instructed in a private full-time day school.’ (Italics added.)” (ruling p.15; italicized emphasis of “in” is part of the ruling, just to be clear!)
The children in the case, while enrolled in a private school, participated in that school’s independent study program (ISP). The school in question does in fact have a campus program as well, but there are many ISP-only private schools throughout the state serving homeschoolers exclusively. What the Second Appellate Court discovered is that there is no law (pro or con) governing the authority of a private school to offer independent study. There is only Ed. Code 51745, which gives authority to public school districts and county boards of education to establish ISPs (presumably but not explicitly within the public system).
It is important to note that this case does not arise solely from a compulsory attendance challenge, but from the family’s frequent intersection with various child protective services. This particular case was instigated by one of the children on behalf of herself and I believe two of her siblings, for various reasons of neglect and/or abuse. Their court-appointed attorneys wanted them in a traditional school facility, where they would be under the regular observation of more adults; this would presumably give them more protection against said neglect and/or abuse. The trial court ruled that the parents have a constitutional right to homeschool, and the appellate court overturned that ruling of law, with the full documentation of statute and precedent.
I have concluded, from reading through the various documents and statutes, that my own homeschooling choice (to run a private school) is not affected by this ruling. I am in compliance with all the private school regulations, and my children attend, on-site, a private school within the exemption guidelines ruled in this case. I do not expect district officials to come to my door demanding truancy proceedings on my kids.
Notwithstanding the legitimacy of my own homeschooling method, I believe this ruling makes an unfairly strict interpretation of the private school exemption by denying the right of a private school to offer independent study. Since independent study is explicitly organized for the public schools in 51745, the state obviously believes it is acceptable for a student to do the bulk of their learning away from the direct supervision of their official school teacher. Given the minimalist statutory regulation of private schools in California, quite the opposite of this ruling makes better sense: that there is an implied right for a legally compliant private school similarly to offer independent study. Independent study by definition reduces a student’s exposure to their teacher; whether that teacher is public and credentialed, or private and “capable of teaching”, makes no difference. The court could easily have ignored or rejected the parents’ “constitutional right to homeschool” argument and made the case under welfare law that it was “in the best interests” of the children that they be enrolled in a traditional school.
State Superintendent Jack O’Connell went on record in response to media inquiries about this ruling that he supports “parental choice when it comes to homeschooling”, which is a bit vague but still a reasonable comment, unlike the teachers’ union officials who have cited the ruling in support of their belief that all students should be taught by a credentialed teacher, obviously in complete ignorance of CA private school regulations. Governor Schwarzenegger went on record more vehemently, calling the ruling “outrageous” and for it to be overturned by the courts or by new legislation. This support from state officials is greatly appreciated, though there is rampant speculation that they are less motivated by concern for parental rights, and more concerned with the reality that 166,000 homeschooled kids at more than $7500 per child means the state would need to find $1.245 billion merely in ADA funding (average daily attendance), to say nothing of facility space for all those kids, at a time of universal cuts to balance a state budget with a shortfall of $7 billion or more.
The assorted homeschooling advocacy groups concerned with California issues (I belong to both HSC and CHN and there are others) are strongly against legislative action and are recommending that individual homeschoolers sit tight while the legal eagles work for a milder, but still thorough, resolution to the issue. (In general, legislation is not desired because it always comes with extensive hoops that detract seriously from the efficacy of homeschooling; the most intrusive and most common is standardized testing, which as we see in the public schools causes “teaching to the test” and erodes true education and learning.) These advocates have agreed to seek from the CA Supreme Court the “depublication” of the ruling; this step would have the ruling limited to the troubled family at issue in the case, thereby denying its broader application vis a vis the statutory interpretations.
I strongly support this action as promoting both an affirmation of the rights of California homeschoolers and a positive resolution for the children at risk in the case. I have made a financial donation to the legal effort, and have offered my time and energy as a volunteer to the various legal and media teams. (I did a pre-interview with a TV reporter this morning but the manager didn’t approve his story; this afternoon, I spoke on record with a reporter for the Fresno Bee.)
If you are interested in making a financial donation to support the effort, here are the direct links for that: HSC CHN
Links to articles and statements about the case:
Permalink
07.20.07
Posted in Books, Current Events, Family, Kids at 4:17 pm by Christina
The imminent release of this book is quite a phenomenon in our house, and we have been building up to it over the last several weeks as all four of the readers here have re-read the first six books in preparation. Jeff and Katie are scurrying to finish Half-Blood Prince…
We have built hardcover collections of the series for our own library and also for the kids’ future libraries; Harry Potter has become a significant memory set for Katie and Emma. We have two copies ordered to pick up after the release party at Keplers Bookstore in Menlo Park, and the other copies scheduled for delivery tomorrow from Amazon.
Jeff is taking the girls to the party from 9 to midnight tonight. Jeff himself will be in a simple costume of robe and hat, dressed (and tagged) as an “Unidentified Ministry Source” – which character is featured frequently in The Daily Prophet newspaper in the books. I created a nametag for him to pin on his robe, based on Ministry of Magic artwork in Mary Grandpre’s illustrations:
Emma is going as Hermione Granger. To this end, she currently has her hair braided in 25 small braids, which we styled into wet hair treated with styling paste; this should give her an appropriately “bushy” look. She’s got a smart “uniform” outfit of black pants, black vest and white shirt, plus her black robe. In addition to her wand, she’ll also be toting a full bookbag (pillow on the bottom and a couple of books on top so it’s not too heavy to carry around!) and some S.P.E.W. materials – sign-up clipboard and membership stickers. She designed the stickers herself and helped me build them on the computer:
She’s also designed a Prefect Badge that I need to create still.
Katie decided to go as Luna “Loony” Lovegood. Based on one of Grandpre’s illustrations she chose too-short pants and scuff sandals worn with socks as her outfit, plus of course a black robe and wand. She also asked her uncle, Joe-Bob, who is a bartender, to collect bottlecaps so she could make a butterbeer cap necklace; and grandma Cissa had some apple earrings that still need to be converted to radishes.
My job is to stay at home with Jamie and anxiously await their return at about 1am or so. I’ll be going to sleep with him at 8:30 so I can get up when they arrive and start reading! Jeff and I both plan to be up all night reading. On Saturday, I have rehearsals at 11 and 1; the plan is for me to take Jamie over to grandma Meemom’s so that Jeff can finish the book (if necessary) and then get some sleep while the girls read. We’ve also decided that the girls may not start reading until there are two books available, one for each (unless of course they decide on a compromise like reading aloud; this is only if Jeff needs to finish still after they are awake).
We started reading the series right around when the fourth book came out (which is when they started being simultaneously released in the UK and US). Katie went to a book 6 release party with her cousin, and we’ve read books 5 and 6 at my parents’ summer party (Clambake 2003 and 2005) (along with many others who were there!- I think book 6 was being read by at least six different people at once that year!). The girls have played so much Harry Potter there are dedicated playroom materials to that game, including fun collapsible trunks we found at IKEA just a month ago. Katie has read all of the books as they’ve come out since she was about 8, and both girls have listened to Jim Dale’s terrific audiobooks. Emma started reading the series about a year ago, around her seventh birthday. We have spent much time in recent months in family discussions about what book 7 will hold, what details we’ve discovered in our re-readings that might be important to the conclusion, and so forth.
It has been a terrific journey that we’ve enjoyed together; I see read-alouds in our future when Jamie is old enough for the experience!
Permalink
04.24.07
Posted in Commentary, Current Events at 11:29 am by Christina
but maybe we should give it a try!
Listening to NPR this week, there of course have been lots of shows covering the murders at Virginia Tech (usually calling them “killings” or “shootings”, but that’s another post entirely!). Many of the shows have a call-in aspect, and so I’ve had the untrammeled pleasure of hearing numerous people spout the infamous and unfortunately successful tagline of the NRA: “Guns don’t kill people; people kill people.”
I don’t think I will ever understand the rationalizations and logical fallacies that lead gun owners to believe that their rights to hunt and keep handguns around the house will be targeted if we pass legislation limiting access to military- and police-force weapons to the military and the police! It’s not like the NRA is even being literal to the entire Second Amendment; they deliberately ignore the opening modifier: “A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state,” etc. Sorry folks, it’s been a long time since the U.S.A. depended on a militia of average citizens for its security; now we use a standing, i.e. permanent, army/navy/ etc. Or didn’t you know that?
But, if we’re going to be so darn literal, why don’t we focus on what exactly “arms” meant in 1791? A revolver mechanism had been invented by then, but it hadn’t taken off; it wasn’t until the 1800s that multi-shot weapons starting spreading around. And semiautomatic (requiring only trigger action for shooting) and automatic (requiring only one trigger action for multiple shots) weaponry took even longer to come around. “Arms” clearly didn’t mean weapons of mass destruction like the ones used in the Virginia Tech murders. Or is there some reason we can’t keep automatic weapons out of the public marketplace, but we can regulate grenades, land mines, ICBMs, nuclear weapons, biochemical weapons, and so forth? “Arms” either means “armaments”, or it means something more restricted; I’d bet the NRA doesn’t think it means any and all weapons, so what’s the support for their position? The modern militia – the standing army – uses all sorts of weapons that the public can’t access legally.
The gun spokespeople on the shows argued that we need less restriction, not more, because if we had less restriction, other students in the classrooms would have had weapons of their own and could have stopped the killer sooner. Folks, if the killer was able to get guns through legal channels, I’m betting most of the students could have done the same. The fact of the matter is that they chose not to.
Unfortunately, they don’t teach logic and rhetoric in schools these days – it would undermine the unspoken goal of creating a malleable populace – and as a result many swallow the slippery slope argument hook, line and trigger.
My thoughts have been heading to Blacksburg all week, but more than that, heading out to the country in general. There will be another tragedy – more than one – and they could happen anywhere.
Permalink