knobster

From all the reports of North Korea and with Iran stepping up their enrichment efforts, their may be a world war soon to reduce the population that is destroying the Earth.

Will P

Thanks, I'll have a look.

W.P.

Roody

Every movement was small in its early stages. In 1770, there were almost no revolutionaries in America, and the idea of separation from England was almost unthinkable. Six years later....

Again, you can't know what will happen in even the near future. Big changes in human society are usually rapid and unexpected. The idea for now is to build to a critical mass or tipping point, when the conditions will be right for this kind of revolutionary change.

So called "realism" is short-term thinking and it's unsupported by human history. "Idealism" has always won out in the long run.

INTP

Human history has enjoyed increasing sources of energy. The harvested energy of fossil fuels that humans have extracted and used over the last couple centuries took millions of years to accumulate. Look at a chart of global population, and you'll see that it took off at the same time that humans began widespread use of fossil fuels. It is only a matter of time before these resources decline in their availability. We've already extracted most of the high-quality, easily obtainable fuels.

Failure to acknowledge that we're approaching a decline in available energy is the epitome of short-term thinking. Human history has never experienced a resource decline of the type that we're on the verge of. When we think of our ingenuity, it almost always comes down to clever ways to utilize these cheap and abundant energy sources. Responding to looming energy shortages with abstract ideas like "Idealism" sounds like wishful thinking to me.

slvoid

I wish you would all die, seriously, the world would be a better place.

knobster

You first dick.

Juha

There can be other reasons for having many children (besides religious zealoting). If there's no pension scheme to speak of, a big family can provide that and give you food and shelter when you cannot pull your own weight anymore. And if child mortality rate is high, people will have to try and compensate by having more babies. So you need working health care and some form of social security to make small families a rational choice.

--J

slvoid

Can we all die together?

knobster

Sounds like a plan! Finally, someone with a head on their shoulders.

NoRacer

Ever see Logan's Run?

How old are you?

[j/k]

rog

Corn itself is also a huge agricultural waste, at least the way it's done here in the States. Read Diet for a Dead Planet, by Christopher D Cook...it's pretty sobering.

mustang1

Living car free is not the answer, or more to the point, it's not where we should start. We have the British governemnt who will shortly introduce new taxes (Green Tax) to 'assist' us in cutting pollution. Pretty much everyone I know see this as yet another tax for the beaurocratic 'elite'. You think all that money will go into 'Green Research'? We'll be blinded by statistics.

The way forward is to change our entire lifestyle, and I dont mean us as individuals, I'm talking about everyone including businesses. Lets start with the big oil companies who sponsor Bush (for example). Bush is an 'oil man' right? You think he *wants* to cut pollution? Give me a break.

I read a few days ago how lorries full of potatos are travelling 200 miles (in the UK) to get them washed, then travelling back (with the washed potatoes). It's stupid. You think you going car free will stop the governments looking after their own? Companies doing stupid things like what I've described? You think putting tax on airplane fuel will stop people from flying? Do you realized how much revenue is generated from the airline industry for our governments? Putting tax on airplane flights will only pass the increase in ticket prices to the consumer. The airline companies will still make money, the consumer will continue to pay. Do you really think the government wants to stop polluting the environment considering how much revenue is being generated?

If YOU want to stop polluting the environment by not using your car, then good luck to you. Like 'make poverty history' campaigns, you have a very long wait for any results to appear (asusming they do). And there's no use responding to this with "Well we have to try something", it just doesn't wash. If you try something, you have to make at least a little bit certain that it will work. I know many of you mean well by leaving your cars, but really, what difference will that make?

You need to lobby the oil companies and the governments of this world, and quite frankly, I dont think that will make a blind bit of difference either. America has not signed up to the kyoto protocol. the UK is behind it's targets with the Kyoto protocol. The people I see making some impact with legislation, useful legislation, is California. Oh, and Toyota/Honda (with their electric powered cars). America lead the war on Iraq. You think that was really about WMD? The whole world knows it's about oil (or lack of oil). America is now looking to buy fresh water from Canada. Canada does not want to sell (the last I heard of it) so America will be using the 'Free Trade' act (ps: not sure if 'Free Trade Act is the correct name used to define the free movement of goods between the two countries, but I hope you see what I mean) to force Canada to sell fresh water.

Have any of you seen the movie, "Who killed the electric car?" I'm pretty sure, without even watching it, you can imagine who did kill the electric car (clue: black gold companies). What you are proposing with "Lets not use ours cars much" is akin to saving a penny a day for your reitrement. Sure, you'll get some money at retirement, but it's not even worth the bother. If you on the other hand can get oil companies (say) and governments to pump $1k per month into your retirement, of course you'll be happy with the result. But the oil companies and governments get nothing in return, it's a business right? They need to make profits for their shareholders.

It's good of you all to think about the environment, I do too. But I wish I could do something more useful. We are just not collective enough. The governments, oil companies, and various other companies (transport, logistics, travel industry, you name it) are, on the grand scheme of things, looking after their own. We are mere individuals.

mustang1

+2 (I'm schizophrenic)

You're right, the governments not only look at quarterly balance sheets but cant really see past their own noses (ie. past the 4 year terms they are in government).

Are there any politicians out there worthy of leading us? In any country?

Roody

Sorry INTP. I obviously did a very bad job of explaining myself. Of course I am well aware of the peak oil theories and the role of petroleum in recent history. And I'm really not a blind optimist. I just think that giving up is not a viable option. If you disagree, fine. If you can point out any usefulness to burying our heads in the sand and waiting passively for the end to come, I'd like to know about it. Personally, I think it's better to confront the problems and do whatever we can to solve them.

You say, "Human history has enjoyed increasing sources of energy," and "Human history has never experienced a resource decline of the type that we're on the verge of." The first statement is true only of the last 100 years of history, and only in a small percentage of the world--mainly, Europe, eastern Asia and North America. The second statement isn't true at all. Human history has faced resource shortages many times. Deforestation is the prime example. In the 18th century Europe finally ran out of wood, the primary resource for fuel an building. The search for new wood was one thing that led to worldwide exploration and colonization by European powers. The exploitation of coal was the ultimate solution that made the Industrial Revolution possible.

"Idealism" is not an abstract idea. Human history has proved time after time that societies can make drastic changes to adapt to crisis situations. Not every socity has been able to do this--Easter Island and the Roman Empire are two widely cited examples of a failure to adapt to changing demands. But many societies have adapted. Any time a society is faced with a problem, the first step toward solving it is to make a realistic appraisal of the available options. To prematurely decide that there are no options is unwarranted and counterproductive.

Roody

I agree. The trick is in providing more resources (health care, pensions, education for girls, etc.)to the poor countries--while decreasing the use of coal and oil. Such a paradox!

cooker

I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss the Green Tax shift (assuming its a shift and not extra taxes). In Sweden when they started adding a tiny tax to plastic bags it had an immediate large impact. If people have to pay the true cost of suburbanization, or driving, or packaging waste, or any other resource-squandering activity, they curtail it. What's the problem with that?

If the potato company had to pay extra taxes because of this practise, they'd figure out a cheaper and less wasteful way to do it. Your statement that "the way forward is to change our entire lifestyle" sounds good, but it needs more than common sense to make it happen...it needs incentive, and a green tax is one way of capitalizing on people's self-interest, to make them change their lifestyle.

INTP

Thanks for the reply, Roody. It seems I could have been more clear as well.

Regarding the first point, I don't know how I managed to make the impression that I'm advocating giving up. That's really not my point at all. What I was trying to get at is that
1) it's a huge problem that requires significant changes, and
2) there's far too little being done about it.
I'm thinking along the lines of the Hirsch report that says that if we worked really hard for 20 years before peak, we might be able to mitigate a crash. That clearly isn't happening.

Regarding the historical points, I'll try to avoid a nitpicking, which I don't think you're trying to get at either. There has been a general trend of increasing energy under human control. Hunter-gatherers used modest amounts of energy. Agriculture increased the amount of energy (sunlight) consumed by humans, as did herding of animals. When we began to ramp up fossil fuel usage, this obviously increased dramatically. Maybe this point is diluted by being too general, but I was thinking in terms of global population as correlating to global energy usage. The correlation on the way up points to a problem on the way down.

I'll change one word of the second sentence that you commented on, which I think is closer to what I meant. "Human history has never experienced a resource decline of the scale and impact that we're on the verge of." Deforestation was indeed a problem, but I don't think that the use of wood was nearly so pervasive as is our current use of fossil fuels. I don't want our past successes to blind us into being unprepared for what I think is a much bigger problem. If you still disagree with the statement, then we must have a radically different view of how big a deal peak oil/NG are.

Regarding "Idealism", I don't know what we're talking about any more. I don't really understand why you made the statement, "To prematurely decide that there are no options is unwarranted and counterproductive." I definitely think there are options. I did state that I think that "business-as-usual" was unlikely, and that the best efforts of a small minority would likely be insufficient. The current course of action is probably not an option, but that is not the same thing as saying there are no options.

This statement, "Any time a society is faced with a problem, the first step toward solving it is to make a realistic appraisal of the available options," makes me think we're really not that far apart. But what I've been trying to say all along is closer to: "Any time a society is faced with a problem, the first step toward solving it is to honestly acknowledge the problem, then to make a realistic appraisal of the available options." If these two steps were occurring, I'd be much more optimistic.


Let's acknowledge the problem.
Let's appraise the options.
Let's get to work doing something about it.

Roody

INTP-- I think there might be another unspoken source for our disagreement. I believe global warming is the critical problem facing humanity. I think (please correct me) that you see peak oil as the critical problem. The two problems are somewhat interrelated but there are fundamental differences. Market forces may fund--and human ingenuity may find--solutions to peak oil. But a more drastic change in thinking and lifestyle may be required to solve the global warming problem, since market forces will always work against finding a solution. Maybe that's why I favor radical individual changes, while you favor institutional and political changes. (Of course I think we agree that both types of change are necessary, even if we prioritize differently.)

cooker

Roody, I wish you were correct about peak oil, but unfortunately the specific market force most likely to solve the peak oil problem is that the market won't have enough food, and the human race will experience die back.

INTP

I almost brought this up in my last post, but had already started wondering whether you were really addressing me, or whether you were addressing some concept that you had in your mind about what I was posting. I'm glad you posted this, because I think I have a better idea of why I was getting this impression from you. I don't mean to be harsh, but this post repeats a pattern of you reading things into my posts and asking me to justify or refute them. I know we all have our filters (me included), but it is getting kind of tiresome to have to keep responding to things I haven't stated.

In my posts so far in this thread, I was thinking of the larger points of the article in the OP, which I saw as primarily addressing population and carrying capacity. The article did not address fully the fossil fuels that are supporting the current population, and understated what I believe to be the case, which is that we have already exceeded the (sustainable) carrying capacity of the planet. I didn't bring up my ideas about climate change, not because I don't think it's important or I don't think it will affect carrying capacity, but because I thought energy availability is an important starting point regarding our assumptions of carrying capacity.

So, the presumption that I think Peak Oil is 'the' critical problem is not the case. Both PO and Climate Change are huge and growing problems. Neither of them means we can ignore the other.

Also, just because I advocate an open discussion of the issue, does not mean I've conclude a collective solution is necessary. I still assert that the noblest of changes by a tiny minority will probably be insufficient (do you agree?), but that is not the same thing as stating that solutions must be institutional or political. (If anything, I would probably say that we should dissolve some the institutional and political situations that exacerbate the problems.)

krazygluon

Simply put, if we don't solve peak oil (whether institutionally or individually multiplied across the entire population) the world will starve and civilization as we know it will die. without a reasonably high density energy source in large supply: you can kiss semiconductors, composite materials and even cheap steel goodbye.

If we don't solve global warming, the planet will continue to warm, but there's a lot of if's unsolved as to how much its going to warm and just what that'll mean. we don't know too much about how well life on the planet will adapt and to what temperature it will have to adapt. we might lose half the available land mass, we might all drown, we might turn the planet into Venus (although I doubt that. unless we spark some unbelievably catalytic effect, we just can't put enough matter into the atmosphere to cause that...particularly violent volcanoes can do that in far greater excess than civilization, and every time we get one of those the effects look more like nuclear winter than Venus.) unfortunately, what will happen in global warming is a highly speculative matter.

Its evident that global warming carries the potentially greater risk, but it also carries a much greater uncertainty. Its fairly certain however that only so much can be done with a low availablility of energy.
If we fail to keep up enough momentum with our energy sources, we won't have to worry about global warming because there won't be any energy around to fuel the industries and activities that cause the warming. I'm therefore prone to giving priority to solving the energy problem.

Platy

Behavioral changes by a tiny minority will not have noticeable direct effects on problems as large as global climate change or fossil fuel depletion.

However, they may still be significant if the minority behavioral changes are:

(1) experimental in nature,

(2) bellwether indications of future trends, or

(3) catalytic.

oilfreeandhappy

Although car-free transportation is important, I think another major change needs to occur - more sustainable housing. I recently visited a "zero-energy" home. The building techniques are amazing, but very few builders are using them, and many don't even know about them.

Roody

In my view, change is driven by threee main factors: individual, economic and political forces. This is my take on how peak oil and global warming will be affected by these forces, given increasing population.

Peak oil: As oil gets scarcer, it will get more expensive. Individuals and corporations will use less. Alternatives will become commercially viable and will be used more. Economic forces will be the strongest force to mitigate the peak oil crisis. Individual and political change will be secondary, although conservation now would help soften the blow of oil depletion. Rising populations will hasten, but not fundamentally change these processes. There will be a period of economic chaos, but eventual recovery and readjustment.

Global warming: Market (economic) forces will always feed into this problem, or make it worse, because it will always be cheaper to dump carbon into the air than not to. The only solutions are individual (bicycles and sustainable housing, for example) and political (effective carbon taxes, for example). Increasing population can only make these processes worse, as well as hasten them. The climate will deteriorate for many years, there will be no readjustment or recovery for centuries to come.

cooker

I think you're underestimating the impact of peak and post-peak oil. Agriculture is far more oil intensive than it was before the "green revolution", back in the 1950s and 1960s, when we feared we couldn't feed more than 3 billion. We can now feed 6 billion because of much higher-yield crops, but these are heavily dependant on petrochemical fertilizers, and on mechanized cultivation, harvesting and distribution. By the time the oil crunch gets intense, there may be 9 billion to feed, but as oil gets "more expensive" (ie. scarcer) agricultural production will start to decline. If the earth could feed 3 billion in the pre-oil age, it will feed fewer than that in the post-oil age because of soil depletion and degradation. High yield crops won't help if the soil can't nourish them. The "recovery and adjustment" you speak so casually of could be as rocky as much of the farmland will be.