SCOD Victorian Tavern

Pipedream Pub Reboot 2012: SCOD Victorian Pub Manifest

Is anyone interested in working on designs with me for a “SCOD Victorian Revival Tavern”? The pub can be either urban townhouse pub style, or rural mansion. As discussed with other SCOD members, Victorian is obviously more popular because of the steam-punk fad, and the high-level of technology and design (relative to the former medieval based project). I will need volunteer writers and illustrators, but if all you have is a penny’s worth of ideas, that will do too. We are more likely to find investors to manifest a Victorian SCOD, rather than the older more rugged Medieval SCOD.

Perhaps combining Victorian Fashion elegance, Victorian Historic Revival Architecture, steam-punk designs, carnival freak-show acts, psychic-supernatural circus philosophy, and other aesthetics; will allow SCOD to appeal to a larger audience and membership.

2012 is also the year that the search for the first democratically elected or volunteer SCOD Council is declared. This will further define SCOD membership, with an emphasis on Pro-Active contributions, rather than Re-Active. Also it will allow SCOD to evolve led by the most current active members, and not held back by the stubbornness of older less-active members (such as myself). Allowing for a SCOD President to be elected often, will allow many to fill the position, and feel proud to add “SCOD President” to their resumes. This in turn will further the goals of SCOD outreach.

I think that by having a Council, it will mimic the structure that existing intentional communities have (not just organizations), and make it clear which members are active contributors (previously labels such as SCOD Associative Member were unclear as many Associated Members were more active than some of the older members). In this way SCOD will become more defined by its ACTIVE members, than by seniority of membership; but through a more defined Constitution (by-laws) we can structure a legacy to build from, and certain ideals to add to or modify (but not disregard).

(note: while this house is not a Victorian Style, it was built at the tail-end of the Victorian Period, and beginning of the Modern in 1908; Inside the entire first floor is dedicated to Victorian Decor, and is an Art & Antique Middle Class Museum. This case study shows how SCOD theory is adaptable.)

*

Global Climate Change

Global Warming – Extreme Heat / Polar Melting / Coastal Flooding / Some Extreme Cooling – sporadic Cold Pockets randomly during shorter cold months / More Larger Storms / More Wars over Resources / Vast Impoverished areas due to devastation 

*

This is what NASA says about Global Warming: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9cNB-UGEqqI

*

Here is what NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) says:  http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html

Climate Change Graph: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html#q3

Recent Century Temperatures Spikes: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globtemp.html

*

EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) basics:  http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/basics/

EPA = “Humans are largely responsible for recent climate change.”

“Over the past century, human activities have released large amounts of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. The majority of greenhouse gases come from burning fossil fuels to produce energy, although deforestation, industrial processes, and some agricultural practices also emit gases into the atmosphere.

Greenhouse gases act like a blanket around Earth, trapping energy in the atmosphere and causing it to warm. This phenomenon is called the greenhouse effect and is natural and necessary to support life on Earth. However, the buildup of greenhouse gases can change Earth’s climate and result in dangerous effects to human health and welfare and to ecosystems.”

*

*

Yes climate change happens with or without us, but there is no doubt that our human INDUSTRIAL pollution has greatly affected our recent climate, and the future of human civilization on a planetary scale. Yes it should scare the shit out of people, because its an unfortunate and terrible fact.

This is one of the starting points of the logic chain behind Climate Science theory. Scientists in the 1950s, 60s, and 70s would not have shot the source of their funding in the foot, if they did not believe they were being objectively honest scientists. The Oil Companies did not like the results that their own scientists found, so they tried to bury the facts. It is not an accident that the corporate funded right wing would lie about pollution. For oil companies it is necessary to down play or discount climate science, to maintain profits. It does not take intense brain-storming to figure that out, that is just basic reasoning.

[ Environmental Science Degree .com article ‘What We Know About Climate Change‘ ]

“Scientists began to experiment with various climate change models. Perhaps one of the first experiments that confused the public regarding environmental warming vs. cooling was the one Maurice Ewing and William L. Donn offered in 1958. During that year, Roger Revelle discovered that CO2 produced by humans will not be readily absorbed by the oceans, a landmark opening salvo that destroyed a long-term standing that the immense mass of the oceans would quickly absorb whatever excess carbon dioxide might come from human activities.”

“The first meeting on causes of climate change met in Boulder Colorado in 1965, and it was here that scientists pointed to the chaotic nature of the climate systme and the possibility of sudden shifts. “

“The global environmental movement becomes stronger, and the celebration of the first Earth Day occurred in 1970. That same year, the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) was created as the world’s leading funder of climate research. 1976: Studies show that chlorofluorocarbon (CFCs), methane, and ozone can make a serious contribution to the greenhouse effect. Deforestation and other ecosystem changes are recognized as major factors in the future of the climate. 1977: Scientific opinion tends to converge on global warming, not cooling, as the chief climate risk in next century.”

“A new group of documents was revealed on Thursday (2018), detailing Shell’s history of studying climate change and its impacts. The documents show that not only did the company understand its role in climate change for the past several decades, but also predicted that legal liability awaited. The documents were found by Jelmer Mommers, a journalist for De Correspondent, and are available at the Climate Files website.

They are similar to the documents that the nonprofit news organization InsideClimate News unearthed in 2015 about Exxon’s decades of climate science knowledge.

Here is a timeline that shows internal research and discussions by some of the biggest oil companies over the past 40 years and how their public statements and campaigns often included very different messages. It begins to draw the picture of what the fossil fuel industry knew about climate change and when and how it contrasted with their public stance:

July 1977: James Black, a scientist at Exxon, told the company’s top management that scientific evidence showed burning fossil fuels was causing climate change.

May 1981: In a paper written for Exxon’s head of research, the company scientist Henry Shaw estimated that global temperatures will increase by 3 degrees Celsius with the doubling of the carbon dioxide emissions in the atmosphere, which could cause catastrophic impacts as early as the first half of the 21st century.

November 1982: Exxon distributed a paper internally on climate change that advised “major reductions in fossil fuel combustion” for limiting global warming.

June 1988: James Hansen, a NASA scientist, testified during a congressional hearing that human activities were causing global warming. It was the first major public warning of a looming climate crisis.

1988: Shell prepared an internal report called “The Greenhouse Effect” that analyzed the impacts of climate change. It noted that fossil fuel burning was driving climate change and quantified the carbon emissions from its products (oil, gas, coal) made up 4 percent of global emissions in 1984.

1989: In a move to coordinate a public response to the growing attention on climate change, a group of big businesses, including Exxon, BP and Shell, formed the Global Climate Coalition. It set out to cast doubt on climate science and lobby against efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

February 1995: An internal report by Shell warned that fossil fuel burning was the main source of manmade emissions that was driving global warming, and this fact “could have major business implications for the fossil fuel industry.” – Climate Liability News

 

“Exxon made the news in September and October of 2015 when research produced by InsideClimate News, the Los Angeles Times, and the Columbia Graduate School of Journalism revealed that Exxon had known since the 70s about the causes of climate change and the dangers climate disruption poses. The articles spurred a wave of actions against Exxon.

In November 2015, the New York state attorney general announced an investigation into Exxon for disclosure violations. Presidential candidates Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders called for a federal investigation into the company. And more than 350,000 Americans joined that call, petitioning the Department of Justice to investigate.

The news has changed the game on fossil fuel companies and their role in climate denial. But Exxon’s track record on climate science denial and climate double talk has been growing for some time. Check the timeline below for a rundown. Along the way, note how global atmospheric carbon levels continue to rise past 350 parts per million (ppm), the level scientists say is safe for human civilization as we know it, while Exxon’s profits (in nominal dollars) continue to rise. 1957
Scientists working at Humble Oil (now ExxonMobil) publish a paper on the dilution of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and ocean. The paper notes: “Although appreciable amounts of carbon dioxide have undoubtedly been added from soils by tilling of land, apparently a much greater amount has resulted from the combustion of fossil fuels”–indicating company scientists understood the link between fossil fuel use and rising CO2. (Source: Center for International Environmental Law)

1968 (Global CO2 level: 323 ppm, Exxon annual profit: $1.2 billion)
In a report produced for the American Petroleum Institute, scientists Elmer Robinson and R.C. Robbins note that, among the possible sources of rising CO2 in the atmosphere, “none seems to fit the presently observed situation as well as the fossil fuel emanation theory.” The paper warns that significant rises in CO2 could melt icecaps, increase sea levels, change fish distributions and increase plant photosynthesis.

[ Source: Center for International Environmental Law & Greenpeace ]

“The documents include a 1957 study, “Radiocarbon Evidence on the Dilution of Atmospheric and Oceanic Carbon by Carbon from Fossil Fuels,” published by scientists working for Humble Oil, a precursor of ExxonMobil. The study looked at how carbon dioxide from fossil fuel combustion accumulates in the atmosphere and oceans and indicates that scientists affiliated with the fossil fuel industry were not just aware of what happens to the climate when we burn fossil fuels, but were at the leading edge of scientific understanding of it. ” – UCS (Union of Concerned Scientists) USA

“The fossil fuel industry hired the same schmuck that ran the disinformation campaign for the tobacco lobby to run their anti-science campaign as well.” – Scientist off the record

“A pair of studies published Wednesday provides stark evidence that the rise in global temperatures over the past 150 years has been far more rapid and widespread than any warming period in the past 2,000 years — a finding that undercuts claims that today’s global warming isn’t necessarily the result of human activity.” – ‘New Evidence’ 2019

“Climate change affects the growth of plants in three ways. First, as CO2 levels increase, plants need less water to do photosynthesis. This well-documented effect was long thought to mean that there would be more fresh water available in soils and streams. But a second effect counters that: A warming world means longer and warmer growing seasons, which gives plants more time to grow and consume water, drying the land. Researchers have now shown a third effect: As CO2 levels rise, it amps up photosynthesis. Plants in this hotter, CO2-rich environment grow bigger, with more leaves. That means when it rains there will be far more wet leaves creating more surface area for more evaporation to occur. Computer modelling shows that such enhanced leaf evaporation has a large effect on runoff and soil moisture, says Mankin.” – National Geographic

*

What should we do about our own pollution shit? Clean it up, and stop making more. The answer is a big part of what SCOD is all about. Renewable energy, green architecture, sustainable living, etc…. Here is what the Navajo people are doing about it! NAVAJO answer to climate change!!!

*

Drogo’s SCOD Quest 2012

“There is always more work to be done. One can be finished working when one is dead, but the work itself may live on long after.” 

~ Drogo Empedocles

The SCOD Pipedream Pub as an idea started decades ago.

For years we planned in secret, because we knew that the Pipedream was not for most people. We refined the concept into the Master Plan known as The Sustainable Cooperative for Organic Development (SCOD).

If our over-lords had not been over-thrown by their own wars, we probably would have never been able to get our land to build on. Before Armageddon land was very expensive, and we came from less-than-royal families of common trades, that would never have been able to save enough money, or get the sponsors necessary to loan such exorbitant amounts of money. We were prisoners in a Capitalist consumer debt society, with no real democratic way to change the system.

However the system was broken, and so things changed. Everything finally went to Hell. Land titles meant very little because public records were often destroyed and there were few legal enforcers since they stopped receiving paychecks, and all their money was increasingly worthless anyway. Sure some cops and firefighters stayed on as fraternal clubs, like biker gangs, but it was not the same.

So we talked to some local survivors that wanted to see the return of more stable communities to the area. We tipped the appropriate people for a few acres of land that was not contested by anyone recently. We felt confident about homesteading that land in particular, and that was important. No one ever challenged our right of eminent domain, at least no one with a previous claim.

Also before the Apocalypse it would have been harder to start an alternative community within an uncompromising empire, such as the one we had. It was not that we were lazy before, because we had probed the corporate climate for years without any ally. So the time was right, but we still had to face a serious dilemma.

After the Apocalypse things were much harder, and life changed for everyone. It was easier to leave where you had been, but harder to pick up with fewer motorized transportation options. It was also easier to make shelter from existing ruins and reused materials, than try to build entirely new structures. So this was the main decision for SCOD members. Do we compromise the main Circle Field with buildings on the perimeter, for land that is closer with many structures already there? Of course
there were many other problems, and questions within questions, but this stood out in my mind.

Often people had nothing of value anymore, so there was nothing holding them back besides loyalties,  nostalgic depression, or worse psychopathic issues that had manifest since the Breakdown. You had to really ask yourself the question; where are you and what are you there for?

Most SCOD members pre-Apocalypse had lived hundreds of miles apart. This meant many days travel once the highways and many roads became unusable for vehicular traffic. Luckily as SCOD members we were more prepared than others to be survivors, and we had contingency plans that we had been putting into place. Not all our plans would be successful, but that is why we had more than one plan ready to go. If you only have one plan, it is harder to reset and try something new.

*

* to be continued *

2012

It’s not 2012,

It’s 2020.

http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=706861D5307125B4