Nature has always had that potential, but nature also has the ability to repair itself; we humans apparently do not.  Bill McKibben, in his new book Eaarth:  Making a Life on a Tough New Planet, says that “For almost all of human history, our society was small and nature was large; in a few brief decades that key ratio has reversed.”

I’m reminded of discussions – 35 years ago – about “appropriate technology.”  These were inspired by British economist E.F. Schumacher, whose 1973 book, Small is Beautiful, was the catalyst for an unprecedented period of small-scale renewable energy innovation that was brought to a screeching halt – in this country – by the inauguration of Ronald Reagan in 1981.

The rest of the developed world continued to build on the  early successes of solar and wind technologies which mostly originated in the U.S.   Tremendous progress has been made since, but far less here than in Japan, Western Europe, and now China.  As recently as 13 years ago, the U.S. made 40% of the world’s photovoltaic cells to generate electricity; now, it’s less than 5%.

Perhaps this new spill, as it continues to drift ashore, will point us in a new (old) direction.  We’ve been here before, but we lost our will.  Even now, as a country, we remain unable to stop the destruction caused by oil and coal and move swiftly and surely to benign energy sources.  Last year China spent twice what the U.S. did on renewables.  As McKibben says, we have already done the damage – we have already changed the planet irrevocably (that’s why he calls it “Eaarth”) and now we must minimize the damage.

Part of that is using technology to develop ever-more effective and scalable solar and wind technologies.  But just as big a part is using less – transforming ourselves into a low-carbon society.

Buildings play a big role in that.  They use 40% of our total energy, and 70% of our electricity, but they don’t need to.

A focus of South Mountain’s work these days is learning to master the art and science of the Deep Energy Retrofit – the practice of building renovations that result in profound energy use reduction, increased health and comfort, and greater durability.

We don’t pretend to know what we need to know about this practice, but we know enough to do a credible job and we continue to learn.  We are just completing – over the next several months -  two fundamentally different deep energy retrofits – the Lake/Hodgson house in Aquinnah and the Woods Hole Research Center in Falmouth (click on the attached article to read more about it).   One is a patched together summer house from the 50’s; the other is a sturdy masonry building from 1910.  They share the following characteristic:  both were buildings that nobody wanted and both, therefore, suffered years of neglect.

Now they are restored, and they share other things too.  They are energy efficient, they are beautiful, and they will each provide many decades of joy and sensible – appropriate – service to their occupants.

The practice is spreading.  The other day I received an e-mail from Ian Bowles, the Secretary of Energy and the Environment for the state of Massachusetts.  The heading was “deep energy retrofit in Boston” and the message said, “john — i hope you are well.  looking for advice on any local experts in the boston area on energy efficiency measures for an old (1878) victorian we are about to buy.  any ideas/leads welcome.  thx.  ian”.

Massachusetts is making a commitment to clean energy that goes beyond that of most states and far beyond the federal government’s.  But the e-mail above means more than all the programs – it means the person in charge has taken this all to heart.

He means it.  That’s good.  We all need to mean it.   Because what we’re doing to ourselves and our planet is far more than a gash in the knee.

He says that  “The global crisis ahead is a direct result of the largest political failure in history.”  

Orr, a professor of environmental studies and politics at Oberlin, goes on to say that “No national leader has yet done what Lincoln did for slavery and placed the issue of sustainability in its larger moral context, . . . and cast it as the linchpin that connects all other issues. Adoption of a robust energy policy is the fastest and cheapest way to improve the economy, environment, health, and equity, and increase security.  It is the keystone issue, not just another stone in the arch.”

The book is stark, blunt, and powerful.

“None of us,” says Orr, “asked for these challenges.  But it has been given to us to lay the foundation for a durable and just global civilization, to secure the gift of life and pass it on undiminished to unnumbered generations, No previous generation could have said that, and none had greater work to do.”

In his view, it’s all about politics.

And he’s hard on pathological optimists like me.  When I was done I needed a lift.

I thought maybe I would find it in Stewart Brand’s new book, Whole Earth Discipline:  An Ecopragmatist Manifesto.

In 1969 Stewart Brand released The Whole Earth Catalog, a “book” that probably had as much influence on my life as any other.  On the frontispiece of the original classic there is a statement of purpose that begins with the now-famous sentence, “We are as gods and might as well get good at it.” Whole Earth Discipline begins with this, “We are as gods and HAVE to get good at it.”  That sums up what’s happened during the 40 year interval.

In this book Stewart closes the loop. In his inimitable way (expository writing doesn’t really get any better than his, in my view) and with the same deeply thoughtful, fearless, always-wry, story-filled and at-the-same-time analytically and argumentatively complex way that he has for four decades, Stewart shakes it up again.

He comes at the issue very differently from Orr.  In Brand’s view it’s all about science and technology.  But the two books share a fundamental underlying principle:  There’s no time to lose and the work ahead is daunting.

But this all goes back a long way, too.  In his classic 1973 economics text, Small is Beautiful, Britain’s EF Schumacher’s argued that a linked system of small-scale local economies would be more effective, resilient, and people-centered than a large multi-national economy.

In the Next Whole Earth Catalog, published in 1980, Stewart Brand said about Schumacher’s book, “Few books have exerted such leverage on an Age as this one . . The wonder of Schumacher’s work is his eminent practicality. . .  with good sense and a mature spirituality [he] comes on like John Henry against the mega-machine, sure that he will win. . .”

Now Brand is promoting the mega-machine.  But Schumacher himself, according to Susan Witt of the Schumacher Institute, said that if everyone were for small, he’d be for big, and it wasn’t just being contrarian. “It was a question of balance,” she says.  “Even in the 1960’s and 70’s when he was writing and speaking, he understood that the balance was tipping too much toward large scale economic institutions and there needed to be a correction towards the local and regional.”

Orr argues for the same, but also for massive international political change.  Brand does too, but he believes that “at this whiplash moment” we need more than political change and re-localization.  “If the transition to a less livable Earth is already under way, we’re ants on a burning log.  We can rush around all we want; there’s nothing in our ant repertoire that can fix the problem.”

Brand adds four elements to the usual environmental repertoire:  embracing urbanization and greening the cities (where, he says, 80% of the world’s population will live by mid-century), stepping up the use of next-generation nuclear power, bio-engineering to feed a changing world, and geoengineering, if necessary, to “change the climate back.”  It’s bold, it’s futuristic, it’s risky, the last three are anathema to many environmentalists, and it’s Brand, through and through.

Underpinning both books is the understanding that the key to our future is the rapid phase-out of coal.  Even environmental activist Bill McKibben makes the point, in Stewart’s book,  that  “Nuclear power is a potential safety threat, if something goes wrong.  Coal-fired power is guaranteed destruction, filling the atmosphere with planet-heating carbon when it operates the way it’s supposed to” [my underlining].

One thing Brand is not concerned about is over-population – he demonstrates clearly that we are headed toward planetary population stabilization (and probably reduction).  It’s those of us already here that he worries about.  “Five out of six people live in the developing world – about 5.7 billion in 2010.  One way or another, the world’s poor will get grid electricity.  Where that electricity comes from will determine what happens with the climate.”

Throughout his career, Brand has been a prognosticator – his predictions are legendary.  Some of them, as he is quick to relate, have been way off the mark.  Some, however, have not.  He says now that  “The shift from dread to action is under way.  The outcome is wholly uncertain.”

At the end,  he summarizes the book with a few pithy sentences:  “Ecological balance is too important for sentiment.  It requires science.”

“The health of natural infrastructure is too compromised for passivity.  It requires engineering.”

“What we call natural and what we call human are inseparable.  We live one life.”

And it’s one world.  Tomorrow is the big day of the worldwide demonstration to cut global carbon dioxide levels to 350 parts per million, the upper limit of safety.

McKibben, the chief organizer, says that the 4000 demonstrations and gatherings that take place in 170 countries will be the most widespread day of political action the world has ever seen.   I’m sure Orr will be there,  in his town, and Brand in his.

I’ll be over at the East Chop Light in Oak Bluffs.  See you there.