You MUST watch this

It's time...

It is my strong opinion that we're on the precipice of an increasingly severe disruption of the status quo. In the parlance of James Kunstler, this is the start of the Long Emergency. While I am hopeful that this phase will be the great reckoning for unsustainable civilization, it is going to be hell on Earth for those who aren't (and even many who are) prepared. There are several converging catastrophes right now, and any one of them has a hair trigger that could be flipped without any warning. Once the new state is achieved, there will be no going back... only forward. I know I am being a bit cryptic here, but there's simply too much to explain. And, part of what I am expressing is a general sense of foreboding, not one single, specific concern. Climate, food supply, water, economics, politics, energy, etc. They are all poised on the edge of collapse right now.

There are steps you can take to become more insulated from disruptions of the supply chain, and become more independent. This is a good idea no matter what happens, because there is always the risk of natural disasters, much less the political kind. As I have stated many times before, life should be about moving toward something, not away from it.

Some preps I recommend:

- Buy salt... at least 50 pounds per person in your direct household
- Learn how to build a rocket stove... it's easy, cheap and the most effective way to cook (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=813641381066114845&hl=en)
- Own some cast iron cookware
- Buy some bulk oil, especially olive oil (http://www.localharvest.org)
- Buy bulk honey, at least a 5-gallon bucket per person (http://www.ebeehoney.com)
- Make sure you have the ability to stay warm... clothing, sleeping bags, etc.
- Get as sustainable a method of water purification as possible in place, even if it's rocket stove + pan to boil water (I also recommend getting a rain barrel)
- Buy a good, sturdy knife or 10
- Convert whatever land you have access to to food production, this includes your yard
- Get a "bug out bag" together with some basic survival necessities: matches, a bar of soap, water purification tablets, a good knife & multi-tool, small sharpening stone, some cash, pen & paper, some wire & twine, multi-vitamins, some hooch, and a pistol if you already own one and are VERY experienced with its use and maintenance.

- Start learning:

1. how to do without
2. how to grow food
3. how to identify wild edibles
4. what your minimum needs are
5. how to create a small, energy-efficient shelter
6. what dependencies you have
7. how to sharpen things
   

Act before you can't. The worst thing that can happen is you'll be overstocked on things you'll need eventually. The best case is it may save your life.

Ugh.

Mimsi update!

Mimsi has been incredibly busy lately, as have we. Here's some great stuff from her:

Here's a great speech that outlines her major points on becoming defenders of the climate/atmosphere: http://www.law.uoregon.edu/faculty/mwood/docs/atmospherictrustkeynote.pdf

There's also a new video that sums up the arguments very well: http://www.law.uoregon.edu/faculty/mwood/video/montana.mov

Mims is working on a book called The Dawn of Planetary Patriotism : A Citizens' Call to Climate Defense. I will let everyone know when it is completed. It promises to outline even more actionable steps.

She is also being interviewed by NPR next Monday at 9:00. There was a great NPR interview she had a few weeks ago, and it's at http://www.law.uoregon.edu/faculty/mwood/naturesmandate.html (have to scroll down to the 5:00 evening edition when you get to the NPR site).

Go Mims!!

No reverse

While I was writing this, I heard the screen door on my house open and someone was banging loudly on the door. It was someone asking me to come out because the need money to buy gas and they are stranded. It's 11:12PM. They pounded again and again, slurred words, anger, intent.

"I'm sorry man... I can't help you."

But what if he had kicked in the door at that moment? What if it was the police? If it was an intruder, I would have seconds to get to my pistol. If it was the police, and I went for my pistol, I'd be shot. Do you see where this is all going? When it's real and in your face, it's too much to process, too much to cope with, too deadly, too much. That's why these fictions of buying green, of the bright side of destroying our ecosphere, the promise of a technological revolution will keep luring people toward the spinning sawblades of consumption that will chew them up one by one, just as it has the salmon, the stones, the trees, the native peoples. We are nothing more than fuel for an insane machine that has no reverse and no off switch. It will not stop. The lies will not stop. You have been warned. You have the information. What you do with it is up to you. If you want help, I'll do everything I can to help you.

Disorganized resistance

From: http://www.etresoi.ch/Denis/disorganisation.html

The Virtues of a Disorganized Resistance

A merican opposition movements have always focused on the notion of organization. It has always been their goal to organize the people. Their hope has been to wield the collective power of the disaffected, downtrodden, and exploited as a single unit against the concentrated power of the ruling class. While their hope has been noble, their methods have been foolish. Organized resistance has many drawbacks. These drawbacks have seldom been discussed by the opposition. I believe that the only effective resistance is a completely disorganized, decentralized, and leaderless opposition.

W hile, on the face of it, this claim may impress you as absurd. Of course it seems absurd! It is counterintuitive. Never the less, it is the ONLY method of resistance that will work within American society. I will explain why organized resistance has never worked in the United States. In addition, I will promulgate a new formula for effective resistance.

Why has organized resistance failed in the USA?

T here are many reasons for the failure of organized resistance. The two primary causes of failure are intimately connected to the culture of the United States and the political system laid down by our nation's founding fathers.

The Cultural Cause

A mericans, culturally, are anarchists. Few Americans realize this. Most Americans have a false understanding of the term "anarchism." However, upon examining the beliefs of your average American, you will find that most Americans:

• do not trust leaders
• do not trust government
• wish to be left alone
• value their privacy
• think of themselves as independent from society
• do not believe that there is a systemic solution to their problems
• believe that others should be free to do what they choose, provided they do so in private and do not harm others

W hile it is undeniable that political culture in the United States often speaks to the opposite of the above list, it is also undeniable that most Americans register as neither Democrat or Republican and most Americans do not vote. Thus, despite the political culture, most Americans choose not to participate in it. This is not only due to their belief that the American political system is hopeless, but also is due to the cultural clash between the wider culture and the political culture.

A ny attempt to organize large numbers of Americans into a single political movement will fail. Any attempt to create an organization led by a strong group of leaders will fail. Americans reject submersion into the collective. In a sense, Americans are anti-collectivists.

The Political Cause

A merican political culture is not ideological. Politicians attempt to draw ideological distinctions between the two major parties, but these distinctions are a matter of splitting hairs. The only significant difference between the two political parties is the degree of compassion represented by the rhetoric of the two parties. Compassion is not a political concept. Compassion is an attitude. Thus, the two parties differ, primarily, in attitude and not ideology.

D espite this, there remain two political parties. One is prompted to ask "why?" If each party is basically the same, with respect to ideology, why do they not merge into one party? The answer to this question is best found in viewing each political party according to its true nature. American political parties are, for all intents and purposes, organized crime units. American political parties have more in common with the Mafia than they have with their counterparts in more democratic societies. Like Mafia, each political party competes for control of territory in order to maximize the benefit to their business constituency. Like Mafia, the political parties attempt to mold the system to maintain their positions and access to resources. Like Mafia, the political parties force the average citizen to pay "protection" under the threat of violence (taxes). Like Mafia each political party uses the "protection" money collected for its own advantage.

B y defining our political system in terms of the "majority" and the "opposition," our Constitution enshrines this two mafia system into law. Each Mafia passes laws to exclude new comers from the game while focusing the rest of its energy in destroying the other Mafia.

T hus, any resistance movement that chooses to become an organization is in competition with these Mafiosi. The deck is stacked and the power of the state, wielded by these organized crime units known as the Democratic and Republican parties, will waste the time and resources of any newcomer. A newcomer can only succeed by rejecting the political system, draining its resources, and undermining the rule of the state.

How is disorganized resistance superior?

I n some societies, dissidents become heroes. In American society dissidents are systematically slandered, libeled, harassed, and villainized. If they become successful, they are murdered (e.g. Martin Luther King, Malcolm X). In the American experience, movements that look to leaders are decapitated. Leaders are a liability, not an asset.

O rganizations can be (and are) infiltrated. Organizations can be taxed. Organizations have legal responsibility. Organizations have membership lists and lists are wonderful tools for the oppressor. Organizations take on a life of their own. They struggle to exist and their continued existence takes priority over their mission. Organizations attract opportunists, power mongers, and attention seekers. Organizations tend to exploit their rank and file for the benefit of their inner circle. Disorganizations share none of these defects.

B ureaucracy cannot comprehend disorganization. Disorganization is invisible. The asymmetry of the relationship between organization and disorganization favors disorganization. Organization depends upon planning. Planning requires predictability. Disorganization cannot be predicted. This leaves organization at a disadvantage.

O rganization requires a supply chain. Supply chains can be disrupted. Disorganization depends only upon the resources of its members. Supply chains that do not exist cannot be eliminated.

D isorganized movements rely upon swarming. Swarms are difficult to defend against. If you cut a swarm in half, you have two swarms. If you eliminate one of the resulting swarms, you still have a swarm. Disorganization breeds. Organization grows. The many and dispersed are a more difficult target than the large and concentrated.

O rganizations takes their steps by design. If the design is flawed, the organization fails. Disorganization relies not upon design but upon evolution. The motivating notions of disorganization are memes. Memes evolve and memes compete. This process improves the motivating notions of disorganization. This process produces multiple courses of action. While some may fail, others are likely to succeed. Taken as a whole, disorganization is more likely to succeed.

T he important thing to remember is that it is easier to destroy than to create that which is designed. Thus, the cost to those who lose the manifestation of their design outweighs by leaps and bounds the cost it takes to destroy it. That which evolves is cheap and when an effort is created to destroy the evolved entity, it merely mutates and evolves again, adjusting to the new conditions. As a process that fosters evolution, a movement based on disorganization will continue to survive, evolve, and expand without cost. The resource constraints placed upon the designed (e.g. government and corporate) and those absent from the evolved (a decentralized and disorganized opposition movement), favor the later.

The limits of disorganization

I do not propose a complete absence of organization. Instead I propose a disorganization of units. Units can be as small as a single individual, or as complex as cell of individuals working together. Cells may be internally organized, but they should not be statically organized cell to cell. The movement should have no commander. It should have no central committee or governing body. No global plans should be made. The modus operandi of each unit should be to think globally and act locally. Ideas, strategies, and tactics should float freely and compete as memes within the medium of the collective conscious.

Conclusions

W e need to construct a disorganized movement. You need not apply to join. In fact, it might be better if you did not contact me, or anyone except those with whom you wish to form a unit. Your ideas, strategies, tactics, and lessons learned should be spread anonymously or by word of mouth. When you act, should you decide to act in resistance, attribute your actions to "the Resistance." The growing din of disorganized disruption will be felt as an earthquake. There will be trembles. There will be pre-shocks. The tension will mount and, in time, there will be an earthquake. When that earthquake strikes, the organized edifice of the oppressor will fall like a house of cards.

News from Mimsi regarding climate change acceleration

Possible 11 degree F. rise by 2030 - International Energy Agency Report

All -- Sometimes it is hard to conceptualize climate crisis until you envision temperature increases within the scale of your lifetime. Only then do you realize the consequences of government inaction.

One recent projection of temperature rise released by the International Energy Agency is 6 C (11 F.) by 2030 -- 22 years from today. It is not adaptable. See first story below.

If we achieve a cap on the rising emissions by 2012 (and industrialized nations cap by 2010), much more optimistic projections (within the so-called "safe" level of 450 ppm) come into play.

In order to achieve a cap in two years or less, all levels of government in this country need to be taking rapid action NOW. While there is no graver threat to the health, welfare, and survival of Americans, most agencies and legislatures in this country are still sitting idle during climate crisis. 28,000 Australians marched in the streets yesterday demanding action in that country.

The second story below is about the UN reports being quickly outdated: "The new report notably fails to take into account a batch of dramatic recent evidence, including the shrinkage of the Arctic ice cap, glacier loss in Greenland, a surge in levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) and an apparent slowing of Earth's ability to absorb greenhouse gases, . . . . Taken together, say the sources, these phenomena suggest climate change is be occurring faster than expected -- and may even unleash tipping points that could uncontrolably accelerate the damage."

Please pass along to your lists.


Stories below:

http://www.environmental-finance.com/onlinews/1108iea.html

IEA predicts ‘shocking’ rise in global energy demand

London, 8 November: The world is failing to curb the growth in energy demand, leading to an increase in projected greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, the International Energy Agency (IEA) has warned. Climate change could spin out of control, with a 6°C increase in global temperatures by 2030, if governments fail to implement new policies to restrain energy demand, the agency said yesterday.

On current trends, annual global GHG emissions from energy will reach 42 billion tonnes by 2030, producing a 6°C increase in temperature, largely driven by massive growth in energy demand from China and India, concluded the IEA's World Energy Outlook 2007 report. This is a 2 billion tonne increase on the projection made by the IEA in its 2006 report.
World energy demand will be 50% higher than today in 2030, the report says, with almost half of this demand driven by India and China.

Within the last two years, China's emissions alone have gone from 35% of US emissions to overtake the US as the world's biggest emitter, the IEA noted. By 2030, India will be the third largest emitter in the world.
Meanwhile, unless producers pump investment into global oil fields, the report says that a gap between expected output and expected demand of around 12.5 million barrels of oil a day by 2015 could lead to a supply crunch.

Speaking at the launch of the report in London, Nabuo Tanaka, executive director of the IEA, called its findings "shocking... particularly given the political capital that has been invested to improve the situation in the last few years". He added: "It is time to act."

He said the report “demonstrates more clearly than ever that, if governments don't change their policies, oil and gas imports, coal use and greenhouse gas emissions are set to grow inexorably through to 2030 – even faster, in fact, than in last year's Outlook.”

Fatih Birol, chief economist for the IEA and lead author of the report, stressed that China and India have a right to the economic growth that is partly leading to this rush forward in energy demand and carbon dioxide emissions. "One third of current emissions in China are embedded, to be exported outside of China," he said, noting that China's role as the production line for the world means that much of its energy is consumed in manufacturing goods to be sold in Europe and North America.

Tanaka added: "This is a legitimate aspiration that needs to be accommodated and supported by the rest of the world."

As well as plotting out probable energy and emissions growth resulting from current policy, the IEA produced an alternative scenario – which sets out what would happen if proposed policies on energy efficiency, energy security and climate change were put in place.

The alternative scenario could cut demand for oil by 14 million barrels a day by 2030. Simply by applying European standards on the efficiency of air conditioning units and fridges, China could reduce electricity demand equivalent to two Three Gorges Dams by 2030.

However, this would only reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 34 billion tonnes in 2030. Although this represents a 19% reduction on current trends, this would still result in a 3°C increase in temperature, higher than the 2°C target adopted by the EU.

According to the IEA, in order to keep temperature increases within the two degree limit considered necessary to keep climate change in check, every new coal or gas-fired power generation built after 2013 would have to be fitted with carbon capture and storage technology, and 30 nuclear power plants and 17,000 wind turbines would have to be built every year until 2030. The IEA currently expects renewables to grow from 2% of world energy supply to 4% in 2030.

However, Sven Teske, energy expert at Greenpeace International, cautioned: "What the IEA projects may happen is not inevitable and fails to take into account realistic options for limiting carbon dioxide emissions in both China and India."

He added: "To avoid the worst impacts of climate change, all countries urgently need to act," said Teske. "Big emitters like the US must lead the way, starting at next month's UN climate talks, in Bali."

UN Climate Report: Already Out Of Date?
Agence France-Presse, November 11, 2007.

"Fresh from winning the Nobel Peace Prize, the UN's top scientific panel on climate change will meet in the Spanish port city of Valencia Monday to finalise a landmark report on global warming and how to avoid its worst ravages. But beneath its newly-won fame, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is under intensifying scrutiny about some of its key processes. Some voices, including from within the IPCC itself, fear the panel's grand report will be badly out of date before it is even printed. Others quietly criticise the organisation as being too conservative in its appreciation of the climate threat. The document to be issued in Valencia next Friday boils down a 2,500-page, three-volume assessment issued earlier this year, the first IPCC review of climate change since 2001. The upcoming "synthesis report," comprising a summary for policymakers of 25 pages, and a technical document of around 70 pages, puts in a nutshell the evidence for climate change, its likely impacts and the options for tackling it. The analysis carries huge political weight. It will be a compass for guiding action on climate change for years to come, starting with a crucial UN conference in Bali next month. But some experts are worried, fearing that the IPCC's ponderous machinery, which gives birth to a new review only every five or six years, is falling dangerously behind with what's happening to Earth's climate systems. The new report notably fails to take into account a batch of dramatic recent evidence, including the shrinkage of the Arctic ice cap, glacier loss in Greenland, a surge in levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) and an apparent slowing of Earth's ability to absorb greenhouse gases, they say. Taken together, say the sources, these phenomena suggest climate change is be occurring faster than expected -- and may even unleash tipping points that could uncontrolably accelerate the damage."