Comments on: Lester Brown on his must-read new book “Plan B 4.0: Mobilizing to Save Civilization”

By: hapa

hapa — Tue, 20 Oct 2009 01:06:59 +0000

i made a handy self-explaining shortlink for the online version of the book:

By: paulm

paulm — Wed, 14 Oct 2009 20:17:03 +0000

Good to see LB get some air time here.

Things do seem to be turning now. However, the news is full of the economy rebounding. I only hope that sustainably (ie non-growth base) is incorporated in this before it is too late.

We will probably have a second chance at this as I am convinced we are coming out of this downturn too quickly (and there are all the other issue waiting in the wings – like food prices etc).

By: Dano

Dano — Wed, 14 Oct 2009 19:16:21 +0000

I’ve been a Les Brown fan for many years, have numerous books of his and have seen him speak (with scant notes) several times. His analyses are incisive and cogent. And I agree with Charles above that the policy prescriptions for turning all this around were wanting.

Regarding the oversight(s) of the environmental community, Gus Speth’s new book The Bridge at the End of the World explains and corrects the oversight(s) wonderfully and it is highly recommended.

Best,

By: Stephen Leahy

Stephen Leahy — Tue, 13 Oct 2009 22:41:06 +0000

Lester makes a great point about media in my interview with him for the IPS new service:

“It looks like I’m a radical because the mainstream media aren’t reflecting the reality of our situation.”

http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=48758

By: Phillip Huggan

Phillip Huggan — Tue, 13 Oct 2009 22:30:12 +0000

Learning about water mining and fossil water aquifers. Confusing as I’m not sure if water mining that results in a ground depression renders the aquifer unrechargeable and if this is what usually happens or if remains a “hollowed-out” vestible suitable to be refilled. The concept would be to somehow recharge the aquifers. Not sure if I mean capturing one-time (temporary surge before glaciers lost) melting glacier runoff or just channelling regular rainfall or rivers to be stored in the aquifer instead of running off to sea or evaporating.
I bet a whole bunch of oil’s workforce could be employed here, but I’m not sure if this would be more economical than just using less water or reusing water. If it only buys you a few extra years of water supply what’s the point? The Mayans had reservoirs capable of storing 1.5yrs of water. Didn’t mean nothing then and wouldn’t much much in the future if glaciers melt. Maybe is better just to put floating logs or something on lakes to eliminate evaporation? Too bad models can’t predict where water shortages and flashfloods will be.

By: pete best

pete best — Tue, 13 Oct 2009 22:09:55 +0000

Just read UNQUENCHABLE about americas water issues. Its a good book and only recently published and I live in the UK!! Reading it for a second time. The world consumes 5000 cubic kiliometers of the stuff ever year.

Thats a lot right

By: Gail

Gail — Tue, 13 Oct 2009 21:51:46 +0000

Lou Grinzo, in case you missed the excellent article in the NYT today about water: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/13/us/13water.html

By: Lou Grinzo

Lou Grinzo — Tue, 13 Oct 2009 20:23:05 +0000

First and foremost, let me add my applause for Lester Brown to those already resounding in our virtual meeting room. Thank you for everything you’ve done, and please keep fighting the good fight.

Secondly, I’m particularly glad to see your focus on water issues. I’ve been saying for some time that the primary vector for climate change’s impact on people will be through fresh water supplies. Less water for personal consumption/use, less water for agriculture, less water for hydroelectricity and thermoelectric power plant cooling–the details are truly horrific, and the more we talk about them and push for real action on our energy and environmental challenges, the better.

By: Mark Shapiro

Mark Shapiro — Tue, 13 Oct 2009 19:24:54 +0000

Editing note – the link to the book, Plan B 4.0, is broken.

Try http://www.earth-policy.org/index.php?/books/pb4

You can download the whole thing free — it’s fast!

By: Richard Brenne

Richard Brenne — Tue, 13 Oct 2009 19:21:47 +0000

Thanks Joe, and thanks Lester for a great post. We just made your February, 2009 Scientific American article (should’ve been the cover, although the chimp-woman was cute) and Plan B 3.0 in our NASA-sponsored Global Climate Change on-line course.

My partner Toby Dittrich and I feel food security is the number one concern relating to climate change. NOAA’s Earth Science Research Laboratory Founding Director Alexander MacDonald does also, because he brought up your Scientific American article to me at lunch recently.

I’ve produced and moderated panels with climate scientists, freshwater experts, topsoil and peak oil and natural gas experts all discussing what the concerns are in their areas of expertise. When you put them all together they’re unbelievably alarming.

You’ve done the best job of synthesizing all this issues of anyone, but I still think you should factor in peak oil and natural gas more. As you know, in 1940 it took a calorie of fossil fuels to create a calorie of food. Now the ratio is more like 10 calories of fossil fuels to create a calorie of food. And natural gas, while currently looking a bit more optimistic than oil with the development of shale gas, is the primary feedstock of most fertilizers.

So when not every farmer can at first afford and eventually obtain all the oil and gas they’re used to, and when transporting food along existing paradigms is also crippled, these will be as key parts of the equation as those you so appropriately and expertly raise.

Also, as you also know there is a global crisis in obtaining capital for all endeavors, including farming.

My dream is to produce a panel with you, people like Kevin Trenberth, Al Bartlett, Bill McKibben (I just had the last three last month at an event at Chautauqua in Boulder) and Richard Heinberg about peak oil and natural gas.

Thanks so much for all your great work, both Joe and Lester.