Just wondering

I was just wondering, after a talk with Sietze Meijer ( Phd, IO TU Delft)

According to many sources peak oil has been[1]. Meaning that we consume more oil than we are able to extract. Some even state that the oil reserves are empty, filled with water or shrinking super vast[2]. Never the less we can see and increase in the amount of petrol product. What does this mean for our every day live, buildings and cities? Do we need to worry or are there enough solutions to our oil addiction. Sure enough we are well on our way with electric cars, solar cells and windmills. But is this really enough?

The African attitude towards the world pollution became clear in Copenhagen. They are not willing to give in or pay for a problem that was not caused by their ‘consuming’ society. Polluter’s pay is what I would say too.

The oil controlling parties added an extra problem to the negotiations. They decided to add some sand to fragile machine of the Copenhagen treaty. That is kind off logical too because most regulations decrease the usage and consumptions of petroleum (their main income and social economic foundation).  Without going into politics, it does seem important to notify that we still depend too much on the consumption of our planet. After all it take 5 time ass much oil to make a car, than it will use in its live time.[3] Electric cars are a myth because we use, eat, shit, wear, talk through and work with oil, or petrol products, every single second in our lives. Imagine what would happen if that would come to an instant hold. No more food, medication, technology, clothing or shelter. Our houses would collapse and our cities would stop and fall apart[4].

So, are we capable of living amongst each other and in harmony with our planet? Are we capable of switching from a petrol based society with fossil fuels, to one where our exhausts actually benefit our environment?

This seems not only a technical challenge but mainly a social one at large. Meaning that we should figure out how we can minimise our carbon dioxide footprint and make households (not only cities) environmentally self-reliant and resilient to socio-economic petrol changes.

Designers always wanted to better the world throughout history, the ‘suckers’.  The post-modern design development in the late 80 made and absolute end to this ambition. The post-modern discourse concentrated itself purely on aesthetic arguments. Many thought that; ‘You can not change the world with design, that’s for politics’, ‘ maybe you can just make it a bit better, but that’s if you’re lucky. Just take care of yourself.’

This seems to be an approach imbedded in our western view of society. According to Gregory Mahoney, (professor at the Beijing University) it is a typical approach based on ‘Nietzsche’. He states that it leaves the door open to the greed that he saw while he was working high up in the municipality of Washington DC. He stresses that we should learn more from ‘Marx’ and his view on our own power to ‘change’ our society at large and live in equilibrium with our surroundings.

I am not a communist, but I do think that big social changes are in order for us to see, and demand, the possibility to consume less petrol and live on a smaller carbine dioxide footprint. Designers could visualise this contemporary discourse, envision carbon dioxide neutral future and stimulate discussions about the maintenances and malleability of our environment, consumption, dwelling area, work surroundings and cities at large.

This is why I want to continue my donuts with design topics like the old housing stock, urban densities, sustainable technical systems and organisations.  The next donut will be about my view on REAP. The Rotterdam Energy Approach and Planning. A design strategy that strives to reduce CO2 emissions and prepares the city for climate changes in the future.

image; http://www.klatergoud.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/httpnazret.comblogmediablogsnewoil_drill051709.jpg

[2] VPRO Backlight, rising gulf

[3] VPRO Backlight, energy wars

[4] Matthew Simmons or Kenneth S. Deffeyes.