[SustainableTompkins] EROI and investment

[Joel and Sarah Gagnon]

At 03:33 PM 1/5/08 -0500, you wrote:
>Another conclusion in the article that I found shocking but useful,
>especially for us in the Northeast: Based on an exhaustive EROI analysis,
>the only energy alternative to fossil fuel that the authors could
>recommend for its long term investment value was wood. I think investment
>value will be a good indicator of use value, at least for wood in our
>environment.
>
>Assuming the above, an important question becomes: How do we manage and
>protect the long term public interest in this resource whose value will
>begin to skyrocket? I am reminded of the firewood crisis circa 1600 in
>Europe that more that anything else drove emigration to the New World.
>Religious and socio-economic problems were often ripple effects of
>population outstripping the carrying capacity of the main energy resource
>of that era: wood.
>
>
>As we retreat from an oil civilization toward increasing reliance on
>wood, how do we avoid Marx's maxim: history repeats itself, once as
>tragedy, again as farce? These crises of key resources in history have
>all too often been blamed on a "tragedy of the commons", as if commoners
>had any real say in the management of forests and other resources, when
>real control was in the hands of a land owner aristocracy or royalty.
>Commoners often had no other management choice but re-appropriation, a la
>Robin Hood.
>
>This suggests that we need to reintroduce to common discourse the literal
>meaning of 'commonwealth', retiring it from vacuous terms like "British
>Commonwealth" or "Commonwealth of Massachusetts", and use the concept of
>'a common wealth' to formalize and enforce public rights and
>responsibilities in such key resources as wood will be in our future.
>
>Karl North

Property rights in this country have the status of a religious tenet. The 
idea , as Tony pointed out, that it is not only ok but essential to allow 
the "private plundering of what belongs to all of us, including future 
generations" is a formidable obstacle to collective management for the 
common good.

Something to consider: the wood on the land is a renewable resource, unlike 
fossil fuels. Its presence reflects either management or, at a minimum, 
lack of exploitation. Is it fair to penalize those who have not plundered 
this resource? Really, the resource is the land. Taking the long view, what 
the public has a vital interest in protecting is the quality and 
availability of the land itself for productive use. That means protecting 
the best land for agriculture and proscribing use of it that would degrade 
it for future use, such as poor logging practices that lead to erosion. 
Most important is stopping its conversion to other uses. It has been a long 
time since agricultural land competed with alternative uses on its own 
merits. That may be about to change. I sure hope so.

Joel