Against the Machine: Being human in the age of the electronic mob, by Lee Siegel

It is a fresh wind in the commercial and superficial world on the web. But for many it is probably easy to dismiss Siegel as one who has not understood the new medium, someone who dislikes almost anything on the web that include more than a few highbrows. And yes he makes a lot of simplistic arguments and he writes of Wikipedia in a way that I think he will regret when he takes a deep breath and reflect, the way he say that we should reflect if we did not increase our speed to keep up with the net...

I also think it is strange to celebrate the corporate media the way Siegel does. Of course there is a lot of really stupid content on the web, but there are also voices that never had the chance to make themselves heard in mainstream media.

In a way it feels as he is so eager to quote all the right people and show that no one of the web 2.0 icons are outside his reach. But it does not matter because he has some very valid points and I really hope a lot of bloggers/web2.0ers/though leaders/etc will read this book.

For each transition to a new medium people have cried out for lost values, and with time they look outdated and afraid of the “new”. It is as we are afraid to admit that each change brings both good and bad. This time we are, if current trends continue, about to lose the very idea of being human according to Siegel. Not because of the internet, but because internet reflects and enhance the existing trends in society. Coming from someone that most likely is not totally mad, this is important enough to deserve serious reflection.

To a large extent I think Siegel’s valid point boils down to the fact that we create a world without reflections, a world where the person who shouts the loudest get most of the attention. This is not only resulting in a world where almost all of the “information” is of questionable value beyond the thrill of looking into someone’s private life.

The serious issue here is that our opportunities to find support to go beyond our direct instincts (sex, fame and money) are the worst even in human history. I’m not sure that this is the case, but I must admit that I feel that this actually is the case. People are looking for media coverage, short sound bites, and things to “sell”… Using an economic language that excludes the very idea of humans as reflective and with an urge to go beyond the trivial.

Siegel’s ideas are actually not too far from those that triggered my idea to launch a large “beyond the blur”-project. I have still not made up my mind if that battle should take place on the web or only outside.

The Independent had this article. I like Jon Stewart and I laugh at his jokes, but maybe I, together with many others, laugh while we lose something important (the ability to talk seriously about serious questions)?

Why not put a face on the future? Name those CEOs and heads of states that are killing the planet: Support the escape from the great carbon lock-in

With a strong agreement that we need dramatic CO2 reductions within 10 years to avoid dangerous climate change it frustrating to see that investments still take place that are locking us into a high carbon dependence.

One of the main challenges is that we don’t differentiate between investments that lock us into a high carbon society for decades and those that can be changes tomorrow. If we are to change direction we must be able to find instruments that can help us define what is important from what is less important. In media today it seems to be more discussions about light bulbs than about buildings. Light bulbs are important, but we can change these quite fast, but buildings will be with us for decades.

Selling a SUV is much more serious “crime” than selling a mobile phone with a charger that use a lot of energy. Not only will a SUV use a lot more energy and trigger investment in an unsustainable infrastructure it will be with us for decades, but the charger, not a very important part of the climate challenge, will also (hopefully) be recycled after a year or two in most cases.

In order to get serious about climate change, equity around the use of natural resources it would be valuable to start by tracking the performance of the top 20 CEOs on the Fortune global 500 list and the political leaders of G20.

A webpage with all the names and faces should be created and then each year their decisions would be assessed (by a group of expert and with wiki-opportunities to write up the assessment). The assessment would include three things on the negative side:
1. To what degree have they made decisions that lock us into a high-carbon society?
2. How much (money) have they invested in high-carbon lock-in?
3. How much goods and services have they put on the market that lock us into a high carbon society and for how long?

It should obviously also include the positive part
1. To what degree have they made decisions...
2. How much (money) they invested in solutions...
3. What have they put on the market...
... that help people move out of poverty in a sustainable way and allow rich people to live better lives with less use of natural resources?

If we can make the current destructive trend less anonymous and get a discussion with those who actually have power to make decisions that affect the future of us all. We could discuss why certain decisions are made and how we can move beyond incremental improvements a lot could improve and those taking decisions that can kill or save us all can answer why they do what they do.

Why not put a face on the future?

Why not put a face on the future? Name those CEOs and heads of states that are killing the planet: Support the escape from the great carbon lock-in

With a strong agreement that we need dramatic CO2 reductions within 10 years to avoid dangerous climate change it frustrating to see that investments still take place that are locking us into a high carbon dependence.

One of the main challenges is that we don’t differentiate between investments that lock us into a high carbon society for decades and those that can be changes tomorrow. If we are to change direction we must be able to find instruments that can help us define what is important from what is less important. In media today it seems to be more discussions about light bulbs than about buildings. Light bulbs are important, but we can change these quite fast, but buildings will be with us for decades.

Selling a SUV is much more serious “crime” than selling a mobile phone with a charger that use a lot of energy. Not only will a SUV use a lot more energy and trigger investment in an unsustainable infrastructure it will be with us for decades, but the charger, not a very important part of the climate challenge, will also (hopefully) be recycled after a year or two in most cases.

In order to get serious about climate change, equity around the use of natural resources it would be valuable to start by tracking the performance of the top 20 CEOs on the Fortune global 500 list and the political leaders of G20.


A webpage with all the names and faces should be created and then each year their decisions would be assessed (by a group of expert and with wiki-opportunities to write up the assessment). The assessment would include three things on the negative side:
1. To what degree have they made decisions that lock us into a high-carbon society?
2. How much (money) have they invested in high-carbon lock-in?
3. How much goods and services have they put on the market that lock us into a high carbon society and for how long?

It should obviously also include the positive part
1. To what degree have they made decisions...
2. How much (money) they invested in solutions...
3. What have they put on the market...
... that help people move out of poverty in a sustainable way and allow rich people to live better lives with less use of natural resources?

If we can make the current destructive trend less anonymous and get a discussion with those who actually have power to make decisions that affect the future of us all. We could discuss why certain decisions are made and how we can move beyond incremental improvements a lot could improve and those taking decisions that can kill or save us all can answer why they do what they do.

Why not put a face on the future?

China now bigger CO2 emitter than US …, or? Getting the numbers right

It has been reported over and over again that China’s emissions is as large, or larger, than US emissions, about 6 billion tonnes CO2 each. We will see more of this so I thought I would put down my key points from presentations regarding this issue.

If China emit more than US or today, or if it will take an extra year or two is less important. The big question is if these numbers actually tells us anything meaningful that can help us guide our action, or if we need to add information to get something useful. Judge for yourself.

FACT 1: Numbers for Simple emissions

China: 6 billion tonnes
US: 6 billion tonnes

That is probably not too far off, however looking at the actual situation using some rough numbers, gives us a very different perspective.

First of all about 25% of the emissions in China are embedded in net export that mainly feed (over) consumption in OECD. So from Chinas emissions we can subtract about 1,5 Gigaton. For US the situation is reversed as it has outsourced a lot of polluting industries and have a net export of approximately 0,5 Gigaton each year.

UPDATE 25th Augusti: New numbers indicate that 30% of China's CO2 emissions are embedded in their export. That would take us to almost 2 Gigaton in the export... (That is about 50% of EUs total emissions so quite a significant number).

FACT 2: Numbers including embedded emissions in import and export

China: 4.5 billion tonnes (due to net export of 1.5 billion tonnes in products)
US: 6.5 billion tonnes (due to net import of 0.5 billion tonnes in products)

Then we should not forget that people are important, it is not countries that emit CO2 but people. So the question is how big the emissions are per capita. China’s population is about 1.3 billion people and US is 0.3 billion people.

FACT 3: Numbers based on per capita emissions from consumption

China: 3.46 tonnes/ person
US: 21.67 tonnes/ person

Another fact that is often forgotten by media in OECD is that it is not only the emissions today that matters. The infrastructure that US (and the rest of OECD countries) have built up exist thanks to massive use of fossil fuel. If we compare the cumulative emissions between 1850-2000 in order to capture the whole industrialization we can see that US have emitted about 30% of the world’s emissions during this time, compared to Chinas 7%. During this time Chinas population has grown from 400 millions to 1 300 and US from 25 millions to 300 millions. So China has been hosting a population between 10 and 4 times larger than US. So not only has US contributed 4 times more historically, per capita we can assume that it is at least 5 times more, resulting in 20 times greater emission through history. Talking about emission trading today without acknowledging the historic pollution from US/OECD is not very credible.

FACT 4: The proportional responsibility from a historic perspective

China: 1
US: 20

China now bigger CO2 emitter than US …, or? Getting the numbers right

It has been reported over and over again that China’s emissions is as large, or larger, than US emissions, about 6 billion tonnes CO2 each. We will see more of this so I thought I would put down my key points from presentations regarding this issue.

If China emit more than US or today, or if it will take an extra year or two is less important. The big question is if these numbers actually tells us anything meaningful that can help us guide our action, or if we need to add information to get something useful. Judge for yourself.

FACT 1: Numbers for Simple emissions

China: 6 billion tonnes
US: 6 billion tonnes

That is probably not too far off, however looking at the actual situation using some rough numbers, gives us a very different perspective.

First of all about 25% of the emissions in China are embedded in net export that mainly feed (over) consumption in OECD. So from Chinas emissions we can subtract about 1,5 Gigaton. For US the situation is reversed as it has outsourced a lot of polluting industries and have a net export of approximately 0,5 Gigaton each year.

UPDATE 25th Augusti: New numbers indicate that 30% of China's CO2 emissions are embedded in their export. That would take us to almost 2 Gigaton in the export... (That is about 50% of EUs total emissions so quite a significant number).

FACT 2: Numbers including embedded emissions in import and export

China: 4.5 billion tonnes (due to net export of 1.5 billion tonnes in products)
US: 6.5 billion tonnes (due to net import of 0.5 billion tonnes in products)

Then we should not forget that people are important, it is not countries that emit CO2 but people. So the question is how big the emissions are per capita. China’s population is about 1.3 billion people and US is 0.3 billion people.

FACT 3: Numbers based on per capita emissions from consumption

China: 3.46 tonnes/ person
US: 21.67 tonnes/ person

Another fact that is often forgotten by media in OECD is that it is not only the emissions today that matters. The infrastructure that US (and the rest of OECD countries) have built up exist thanks to massive use of fossil fuel. If we compare the cumulative emissions between 1850-2000 in order to capture the whole industrialization we can see that US have emitted about 30% of the world’s emissions during this time, compared to Chinas 7%. During this time Chinas population has grown from 400 millions to 1 300 and US from 25 millions to 300 millions. So China has been hosting a population between 10 and 4 times larger than US. So not only has US contributed 4 times more historically, per capita we can assume that it is at least 5 times more, resulting in 20 times greater emission through history. Talking about emission trading today without acknowledging the historic pollution from US/OECD is not very credible.

FACT 4: The proportional responsibility from a historic perspective

China: 1
US: 20