"Climate Change - Doubts, Denials, Scepticism, and Politics"

[Coito ergo sum]

But you offered the comment in the context of a discussion about GW and climate change and hence I took it that way. Not too surprising, eh?

And, rightly so, because it falls into the same category - constant overhyping of the issue in order to "raise awareness" a la Al Gore.

That’s nonsense. We’re talking about climate science, which is conducted rigorously and with great regard for error.

That's not all we're talking about. We're talking about what the science is hyped to be, which exceeds the rigorously vetted science.

In 1989 we (the world) created a climate science body to look after and monitor the climate for us and to report to us what the science is saying, which they do every five years. This is a science agency, the IPCC, some 2,500 scientists woking gratis collecting, accumulating and integrating some 10,000 scientific papers (or books), then evaluating them and figururing out what their data are showing and describing that in language we can understand.

AR4, published in Spring 07, is 3,000 pages of reporting on our climate, all of which are freely available on the web in convenient PDF files. It is the product if five years of analyzing, testing, refining, correlating, comparing, structuring, normalizing and otherwise dealing with and coming to understand mountains of climate data published in 10,000 peer reviewed papers.

That can’t be done in an undisciplined manner, garbage in, garbage out. It must be disciplined and it is indeed so, as we would expect to find in any scientific undertaking. Discipline is a functioning attribute of working with the scientific method. It keeps science sane and great and ordered, which allows things that we build to work as intended, airplanes fly for example, Apollo went to the moon.

Climate scientists who are active in climate science are of this discipline, make no mistake. It is serious business. The entire world can read their reporting and comment thereon, and it does. You too can read it for youself. Just don’t expect to find any wild assertions or doomsday pronouncements therein, you won’t find them, they are not there. And that’s the voice of climate science. Thewre is no other voice that speaks for the science, none.

Except that when our politicians set policy, or attempt to set policy, they use the science to legislate based on hype, and use it to achieve other agendas. There is real science, and then there is what the real science is hyped to be. That's where we get doomsday predictions, a la Al Gore, who spoke in massively exaggerated terms to "raise awareness."

Everything else is like static on the radio, noise generated by a host of competing interests,

Yes, and quite often politicians on both sides of the aisle accept the static and the noise, and ignore the reality.

the fossil fuel industry’s propaganda campaign, the auto industry’s resistance, political machinations, they’re all in that mix. What you hear from them isn’t the science, nor even about the science, it's propaganda, it's spin, it's poor reporting.

The "reporting" about climate science is also spin, propaganda, noise and static that exaggerates the evidence and exceeds the conclusions actually reached.

If some blogger goes bonkers and writes a doomsday scenario off his interpretation of what he’s heard (he probably doesn’t read much) that’s him talking, not climate science. If some scientist, whom Exxon is paying $200K a year to speak for them, gets up and says “Al Gore is an alarmist and a hype artist,” that’s Exxon speaking, not the scientist and certainly not the science.

Al Gore is alarmist and an exaggerator, and it's not just his political opponents that are saying it.

It is necessary to distinguish the meaningless from the meaningful. The only words that have any real play in this thing are the one’s the scientists write, most of all else is meaningless and irrelevant … to the central issue.

They are not the only ones that have meaning, not when politicians take action based on the exaggerations and hype.

Thus we should not equate any scientific prognostication published by the IPCC to the ranting of environmental doomsdays expressed in times past.

I have not done so.

The former is in a completely different league. It is organized. It is a Manhattan project. With 2,500 scientists from more than 100 countries, the IPCC’s process almost assures reasonableness and a scientifically appropriate treatment of the facts and evidence. The world can’t do any better than that. The IPCC is mission oriented, the mission is dedication to climate science.

Fine.

Most of the claims to which you refer weren’t made by scientists or were made by men who thought they were scientists or who wished to be. With the media paying a role by blowing their prognostications out of all proportion, e.g. the Ice Age scare in the 1970’s, which had zero science behind it, was mainly a hype job by the media.

Of course, and much of what general global warming proponents propagate is what is described in the media - overhyped, out of context claims that bear little resemblance to the actual science. There's the engineer who builds something, and then there's the salesmen.

This is not exactly the truth of it.

It is.

Distinguish between the science and the rhetoric spewed by the media,

Sure, but the rhetoric spewed by the media is often accepted by the general public and also upon which politicians base their decisions. Why do you think hosts of politicians that were in favor of certain political measures prior to "climate gate" were suddenly "shocked and amazed" by the allegations, and then changed their policy positions? Is that because they relied on the "good science" first, and now are in doubt? Or, is it because they rely on sources they "trust" for what they can base their conclusions on and avoid looking at the details of what the science actually shows?

but watch what’s expressed in the media a bit more closely, because it is far and away biased toward the hoax idea than any reality.

I don't find that to be the case at all. There is only one channel that really gives any credence to the idea that climate science is a hoax, and that's fox news. All the major networks and all the cable news stations in the US delayed reporting on climate-gate, and report on global warming allegations (whatever allegations are made concerning how we're going to see dozens of massive hurricanes each year, to deserts in southern United States, massive earthquakes in record numbers, and on and on and on). In the US, global warming is reported on as unequivocal fact, for the most part.

I told you that Exxon had succeeded very well in confusing the nation, which includes the media.

The media reports what is put in front of them. The news channels, in the US, are no longer investigative journalists. They now report "sides." They say, "this representative of the left tells us X, Y and Z" and "this representative of the right tells us A, B, and C" and the "the white house says Boo," and the "Republicans say Hoo." That's what the news has become in the US. Balance doesn't mean "accurately reporting the truth," but rather "accurately reporting various interest groups' opinions."

There has not been an army of “proponents” of GW; Gore stands out because he made a movie and won a Nobel (half of which went to the IPCC), but the Al Gore’s are few and far between in media coverage of the issue. And over the past six months this has greatly intensified by climategate, a huge ruckus stirred up by a criminal attack in e:mail servers at East Anglia University’s Climate Reserch Center, a criminal attack.

Nobody has been arrested, although some of the East Anglia climate scientists have resigned over it. Not sure why they would do that.

Damn...your post was long, even for me to get through. Gotta run or the little woman is going to geld me.

[macdoc]

That's not all we're talking about. We're talking about what the science is hyped to be, which exceeds the rigorously vetted science.

Not by the scientists....you keep claiming this but have nothing to support your contention.
Climate change is a serious risk and the risk level heightens as more is understood...but you want to down play it when the reality is worse than is being portrayed in most instances.

Perhaps you'll accuse your military of Over reacting as well....

Climate change challenges U.S. military
KEVIN FUREY | Posted: Sunday, April 25, 2010 12:05 am | (8) Comments

As a veteran of the Iraq war, I make an effort to keep track of national-security news. That’s why I read with interest the stories about the Department of Defense’s recently released Quadrennial Defense Review, a congressionally mandated assessment of the strategic threats facing the U.S. now and in the future.

One of the conclusions in the QDR was both groundbreaking and sobering: Climate change will play a “significant role in shaping the future security environment,” and it will be an “accelerant of instability or conflict.” This is the first time the DOD has officially recognized climate change as a serious national security issue.

The QDR echoes the conclusions of the CIA’s National Intelligence Council, which reported that global warming could directly impact the United States by threatening energy supplies and damaging military bases. They estimate that as many as 800 million people could be facing increasing food and water shortages in the next 15 years. Their concern is that widespread hunger, population displacement and economic ruin caused by climate change will lead to political instability and the collapse of civil society in less-developed countries, creating millions of “environmental refugees.”

http://billingsgazette.com/news/opinion ... 002e0.html

even the gnomes get it..

Climate Change Risk Is an Emergent Issue

BOSTON, Ma.—Managing climate change risk is a growing priority for insurers and actuaries, attendees of the Casualty Actuarial Society (CAS) annual meeting were told during a general session titled, “Climate Risk Reporting and Monitoring,” which was held November 17, 2009.

Joel Ario, commissioner of the Pennsylvania Department of Insurance, observed that there has been a marked shift in recent years in how insurers approach the issue of climate change. “When we talk to insurers about what they are doing in the area of climate change, nobody questions the issue. The discussion about not doing anything is long past. The discussion is now about what to do,” he said.

http://www.casact.org/newsletter/index. ... rt&id=5918

but of course you know better and counsel dragging of feet

For a variety of reasons carbon emissions must be curtailed drastically.....on the ocean front alone regardless of climate...

age last updated at 15:42 GMT, Friday, 30 January 2009

Acid oceans 'need urgent action'

The world's marine ecosystems risk being severely damaged by ocean acidification unless there are dramatic cuts in CO2 emissions, warn scientists.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7860350.stm

so the take away is get on with it....and stop with the fucking foot dragging...with your attitude we'd be admiring the sterile fresh water lakes while wearing our aluminum foil sun suits.

[ginckgo]

Exxon and the fuel industry do not operate in a vacuum. People drive cars, and use the goods produced in factories.

Just because someone provides an important product does not mean they are beyond criticism for their actions.

Nobody is beyond criticism. My point was if you were going to saddle them with the entire cost, you need to credit them with the entire benefit.

Not necessarily: The fossil fuel extraction industry can be credited with getting the stuff out of the ground in a profitable manner. However, they had very little to do with making the product useful. Petroleum by itself is less than useless, it's toxic.

This argument could, of course, be taken further to acquit the extraction industry from the ways in which their product was used. And I think both arguments are correct: We shouldn't get all nostalgic about oil (and the industries involved) just because it got us here, but there's also no point in demonising it along with the industries involved - as long as these industries don't actively impede the transition to newer energy sources; and there's certainly evidence that some companies have done just that.

The advancements of the last 200 years would not have been possible without the oil industry, ...

Again, don't conflate the product with the provider. Two very different beasts.

You can't produce oil without an oil industry.

You also can't have an oil industry without a society based around oil.

....so it would not be truly reflective of the cost/benefit analysis to just send them the bill without crediting them for the benefits to civilization that fossil fuel production have provided. I realize it is in vogue to demonize fossil fuels as the worst thing that ever happened to the US, and to phrase it in alarmist terms that we are "hooked" (like an addict) on fossil fuels, but the marked increase in standard of living is directly due to the discovery and processing of fossil fuels: light, heat, food, communication, travel, community -- all are based on our ability to produce and use energy. And most of our energy, about 85%, comes from fossil fuel. (Another 8% comes from nuclear power, and 7 % from all other sources, mostly hydroelectric power and wood.)

Our life styles are utterly dependent on cheap and effectively unlimited energy. "Utterly dependent" could be rephrased as "hooked".

Hooked implies an "addiction" which is an irrational dependency on a substance. People use the term hooked to conjure up images of a junky who is hooked on a drug (which provides nothing but surface "benefit" and is ultimately only harmful). Oil, however, has been extraordinarily beneficial to our way of life. We don't necessarily have to have oil, per se, to keep our way of life, but we do need gobs and gobs of energy.

Not all addictions are based on things that are inherently bad for you. Someone can also be an "excercise junkie", addicted to the high they get from excessive excercise. Excercise in the right amount is very beneficial, but if it's overdone it can be detrimental to your health.

There's also a difference between the benefits that this flood of energy has provided, and the feeling of entitlement that many seem to have that they should be allowed to just continue to fritter it away without any attempt to limit frivolous activities.

What frivolous activities? The most frivolous activities - making movies, the music industry, vacations and tourism, etc., are among the least criticized. Most of our energy is used in such frivolous activities as "going to work" - heating/cooling a home - feeding kids and families - shopping - manufacturing things like cars and computers.

Come on, you're not even trying to understand my arguments here. None of those things is what I was thinking of. I'm talking frivolous things like energy inefficient appliances, gas guzzling cars, Las Vegas, you know things that add zero to anyone's quality of life. I would wager that if we cut out the most useless half the products that the West consumes, no one would feel their quality of life reduced, yet we would save vast amounts of energy and resources. Same goes for other 'low hanging fruit' like simple energy efficiency. Yet we happily consume cheap products that add little if any value, and consume disproportionate amounts of energy and resources.

Noone wants to take away the benefits, which is why the solutions to both AGW and peak oil need to be very well thought out. But that's not happening. Instead we have selfish lobbying by industries, blind partisanism by politicians, and lethargy by the populace.

The solution is simple (but not necessarily easy): produce more energy from other sources, like nuclear.

The vast amount of energy placed at the disposal of humanity, through fire, could be, and was, used to revolutionize the nature of our existence. - Isaac Asimov

Fire enabled man to go global. Nor has the importance of fire diminished with time; rather the reverse. Wood was undoubtedly the first fuel used in building and maintaining a fire. Coal took primacy of place in the 17th century, joined by gas and oil in the 20th. Without it, we would not be able to, now, talk of changing over to nuclear and other alternative fuels to generate the power we need to sustain our standard of living (which in the West allows the common person to live as comfortably, and in some ways much better, than Kings and Queens prior to the industrial revolution).

This is how we got here, it's history. It does not mean that we continue doing it the same way. Slavery made many countries very wealthy - it's abolition was heralded as the end of prosperity. ho mum.

Of course - but, the answer is a replacement source of power.

Exactly, oil is but a stepping stone. Yet a lot of the denialists complain that if we wean ourselves of oil too fast our civilisation will collapse.

The thing that scares me is that we have this one chance to transition from a fossil fuel society to something more sustainable. Fossil fuesl are running out. But we must have suffient fossil fuels to establish the infrastructure for the next generation of energy providers. If we run out of fuel before this happens, it is unlikely to ever happen, because we've already extracted all the resources that are accessible without cheap fuel. So no second chances.

One word - nuclear. That's the answer for the near term (talking 100 years). Nuclear is the only viable way, at present, to generate enough power within the next 3-5 decades to cut our need for fossil fuels by any real percentage. If we build enough nuclear power plants, we could easily be rid (from a US perspective) of the need for foreign oil completely in 25 years. I think a lot of people on both sides of the political spectrum would love to see the US not have an economic incentive to mill about in the middle east, ay?

Quite possibly - but I'm still on the fence about nuclear.

[Fact-Man]

That's not all we're talking about. We're talking about what the science is hyped to be, which exceeds the rigorously vetted science.

Well, you may be but I'm not. I've said stick to the science, stick with the voice of climate science, the IPCC's Assessment Reports and its between-reports updates. I pointed you to one, the Copenahgan Diagnosis, so you'd have the latest in what climate science is reporting. Did you get it? Did you read it? Did you think about, even for a moment? No.

But, hyped by whom? Hyped how and for what reason?

I don't give a rat's ass about hyped science, and you shouldn't either. There are madmen everywhere who will hype anything, especially if it's gonna make them a buck.

In 1989 we (the world) created a climate science body to look after and monitor the climate for us and to report to us what the science is saying, which they do every five years. This is a science agency, the IPCC, some 2,500 scientists woking gratis collecting, accumulating and integrating some 10,000 scientific papers (or books), then evaluating them and figururing out what their data are showing and describing that in language we can understand.

AR4, published in Spring 07, is 3,000 pages of reporting on our climate, all of which are freely available on the web in convenient PDF files. It is the product if five years of analyzing, testing, refining, correlating, comparing, structuring, normalizing and otherwise dealing with and coming to understand mountains of climate data published in 10,000 peer reviewed papers.

That can’t be done in an undisciplined manner, garbage in, garbage out. It must be disciplined and it is indeed so, as we would expect to find in any scientific undertaking. Discipline is a functioning attribute of working with the scientific method. It keeps science sane and great and ordered, which allows things that we build to work as intended, airplanes fly for example, Apollo went to the moon.

Climate scientists who are active in climate science are of this discipline, make no mistake. It is serious business. The entire world can read their reporting and comment thereon, and it does. You too can read it for youself. Just don’t expect to find any wild assertions or doomsday pronouncements therein, you won’t find them, they are not there. And that’s the voice of climate science. There is no other voice that speaks for the science, none.

Except that when our politicians set policy, or attempt to set policy, they use the science to legislate based on hype, and use it to achieve other agendas. There is real science, and then there is what the real science is hyped to be. That's where we get doomsday predictions, a la Al Gore, who spoke in massively exaggerated terms to "raise awareness."

How the hell do you know this when you know nothing?

Of course the politicians are pulled hither and yon by special interest lobbying. If you're informed this is easy to see but who cares? Not me. The climate Bill that's now before the US Congress (Waxman-Markely) will cut emissions by 17% over the next 40 years, not even half the amount we need to cut emissions in that time frame. That makes it among the least interesting things I can think of.

The house is burning in a raging conflagration and here comes a kid with a garden hose. I'm not interested ... because I know damned well he stands no chance whatsoever.

Everything else is like static on the radio, noise generated by a host of competing interests,

Yes, and quite often politicians on both sides of the aisle accept the static and the noise, and ignore the reality.

Send 'em a fax, that's what I do. Let them know you're not satisfied with what they're doing. Discussing it here is useless.

the fossil fuel industry’s propaganda campaign, the auto industry’s resistance, political machinations, they’re all in that mix. What you hear from them isn’t the science, nor even about the science, it's propaganda, it's spin, it's poor reporting.

The "reporting" about climate science is also spin, propaganda, noise and static that exaggerates the evidence and exceeds the conclusions actually reached.

That's why it's incumbent upon the likes of us to read and study the science, so we can reach or own conclusions.

If some blogger goes bonkers and writes a doomsday scenario off his interpretation of what he’s heard (he probably doesn’t read much) that’s him talking, not climate science. If some scientist, whom Exxon is paying $200K a year to speak for them, gets up and says “Al Gore is an alarmist and a hype artist,” that’s Exxon speaking, not the scientist and certainly not the science.

Al Gore is alarmist and an exaggerator, and it's not just his political opponents that are saying it.

Mr. Gore had a mission, he wanted to wake people up. Sometimes you have to slap people to wake them up, sometimes you have to slap them hard, real hard.

He was competing against Exxon's disinformation campaign, which had been going on for several years by the time he made his film so he was behind in the game, he was playing catch up. Nothing misrepresented the science in his film nor expressed it erroneously. Was it dramatized? Of course it was, that's the way you get people to pay attention. You have to dramatize it because most people are like you, they don't wanna read the science.

Gore did the world a service by making that movie, and that's why the Nobel Committee recognized him and awarded him half a Nobel prize. That's why the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences recognized him and awarded him an Oscar for his picture.

Now you come along and claim Mr. Gore is an "alarmist and an exaggerator," proving once again you don't know what the hell you're talking about.

It is necessary to distinguish the meaningless from the meaningful. The only words that have any real play in this thing are the one’s the scientists write, most of all else is meaningless and irrelevant … to the central issue.

They are not the only ones that have meaning, not when politicians take action based on the exaggerations and hype.

First, I'd like you to cite an instance of that, back it up. Second, I don't give a shit what politicians do and I don't because I know that in the end it is the science that will prevail, and the end won't come for at last another decade, as I have explained.

If you're so all concerned about politicians taking action based on exaggerations and hype, do something about it, don't argue with me over it. I don't care.

Thus we should not equate any scientific prognostication published by the IPCC to the ranting of environmental doomsdays expressed in times past.

I have not done so.

The hell you haven't, you did exactly that. You compared any number of doomsday ranting from years gone by with what climate science is saying today.

The former is in a completely different league. It is organized. It is a Manhattan project. With 2,500 scientists from more than 100 countries, the IPCC’s process almost assures reasonableness and a scientifically appropriate treatment of the facts and evidence. The world can’t do any better than that. The IPCC is mission oriented, the mission is dedication to climate science.

Fine.

Most of the claims to which you refer weren’t made by scientists or were made by men who thought they were scientists or who wished to be. With the media paying a role by blowing their prognostications out of all proportion, e.g. the Ice Age scare in the 1970’s, which had zero science behind it, was mainly a hype job by the media.

Of course, and much of what general global warming proponents propagate is what is described in the media - overhyped, out of context claims that bear little resemblance to the actual science. There's the engineer who builds something, and then there's the salesmen.

This is not exactly the truth of it.

It is.

Prove it. You can't.

Distinguish between the science and the rhetoric spewed by the media,

Sure, but the rhetoric spewed by the media is often accepted by the general public and also upon which politicians base their decisions. Why do you think hosts of politicians that were in favor of certain political measures prior to "climate gate" were suddenly "shocked and amazed" by the allegations, and then changed their policy positions? Is that because they relied on the "good science" first, and now are in doubt? Or, is it because they rely on sources they "trust" for what they can base their conclusions on and avoid looking at the details of what the science actually shows?

No politician I know of changed their policy positions based on climategate. Cite one if you can. I don't think you can.

but watch what’s expressed in the media a bit more closely, because it is far and away biased toward the hoax idea than any reality.

I don't find that to be the case at all. There is only one channel that really gives any credence to the idea that climate science is a hoax, and that's fox news. All the major networks and all the cable news stations in the US delayed reporting on climate-gate, and report on global warming allegations (whatever allegations are made concerning how we're going to see dozens of massive hurricanes each year, to deserts in southern United States, massive earthquakes in record numbers, and on and on and on). In the US, global warming is reported on as unequivocal fact, for the most part.

Well, did you ever think that might be because it is?

News outlets always have the dissenting voice on hand, so as to appear to be fair and balanced. Yet the facts are that 98% of science agrees that GW is real, and 2 per cent don't. But they get equal air time.

Lake Mead, which is behind Boulder Dam on the Colorado River, stands 120 feet lower than it has ever stood since it filled in 1935-36.

I told you that Exxon had succeeded very well in confusing the nation, which includes the media.

The media reports what is put in front of them. The news channels, in the US, are no longer investigative journalists. They now report "sides." They say, "this representative of the left tells us X, Y and Z" and "this representative of the right tells us A, B, and C" and the "the white house says Boo," and the "Republicans say Hoo." That's what the news has become in the US. Balance doesn't mean "accurately reporting the truth," but rather "accurately reporting various interest groups' opinions."

They consistently get climate science wrong. They consistently fuzzify instead of clarify,

There has not been an army of “proponents” of GW; Gore stands out because he made a movie and won a Nobel (half of which went to the IPCC), but the Al Gore’s are few and far between in media coverage of the issue. And over the past six months this has greatly intensified by climategate, a huge ruckus stirred up by a criminal attack in e:mail servers at East Anglia University’s Climate Reserch Center, a criminal attack.

Nobody has been arrested, although some of the East Anglia climate scientists have resigned over it. Not sure why they would do that.

Nobody has resigned. Jones stepped aside until the investigations are complete. He will return now that he and his colleagues have been given a clean bill of health by the Royal Society.

Nobody has been arrested ... yet, the police investigation continues.

This has become a tiring exercise. You're somehow stuck on what you perceive to be "hyped science" and politicians acting thereon and repeating a lot of the denialosphere's talking points, while not reading or studying the science one whit.

That's not what I'm interested in. The hype will go on as it will, the crazed deniers will bleat and steal e:mails as they will, the politicians will not come up with any real solutions for at least a decade, and then the science and the physical evidence will push them up against the wall and they will be forced to act, forced by facts and evidence, which they won't be able to either ignore (any longer) or escape.

I'm in this thread to square away any denizen of the denialosphere who happens along, spewing the rhetoric of denial. No other reason to be here. I'll blow their assertions and claims out of the water and if they want to debate the issue, I'll sure's hell do that. But I have little interest in where you're coming from on this, which strikes me as being quite discombooberated and out of whack with the realities.

So it's probably time we knock it off.

[Coito ergo sum]

Exxon and the fuel industry do not operate in a vacuum. People drive cars, and use the goods produced in factories.

Just because someone provides an important product does not mean they are beyond criticism for their actions.

Nobody is beyond criticism. My point was if you were going to saddle them with the entire cost, you need to credit them with the entire benefit.

Not necessarily: The fossil fuel extraction industry can be credited with getting the stuff out of the ground in a profitable manner. However, they had very little to do with making the product useful. Petroleum by itself is less than useless, it's toxic.

The only reason it was gotten out of the ground was because it had a use.

This argument could, of course, be taken further to acquit the extraction industry from the ways in which their product was used. And I think both arguments are correct: We shouldn't get all nostalgic about oil (and the industries involved) just because it got us here, but there's also no point in demonising it along with the industries involved - as long as these industries don't actively impede the transition to newer energy sources; and there's certainly evidence that some companies have done just that.

Well, nothing is stopping anyone from producing a better fuel or power source. The problem is that nuclear is inhibited by politics. Solar and wind have practical issues, and are themselves often opposed by environmentalists who complain about the impact of using a lot of land for producing that kind of electrical power. In other words, we seem to wind up between a rock and a hard place - we have a "no oil" movement along with a "nothing else, either" movement, because there is an active movement to say that we shouldn't be living the kind of life we live in the west.

For the record, responding to the other long posts addressing me in sum - people need to stop calling me a "denier." I've explained my position and it is not "denial." It's skepticism. And, do not believe there is an evil conspiracy or mass fraud; however, I do see a lot of alarmism and hype. That's what I see in the media and here from people who aren't quoting peer reviewed scientific studies but rather NY Times articles written by moronic journalists.

Nevertheless, where we have complete agreement is that it would be a good thing to find a different, clean fuel source. I wold love for there to be less pollution. Period. So, that's why I've said many times that we need to put our eye on the practical upshot of what stopping the primary use of fossil fuels requires: OTHER FUELS.

The advancements of the last 200 years would not have been possible without the oil industry, ...

Again, don't conflate the product with the provider. Two very different beasts.

You can't produce oil without an oil industry.

You also can't have an oil industry without a society based around oil.

Of course, and you couldn't have an industrial revolution without a fuel like coal and oil, fossil fuels. We had no capacity for nuclear, solar or even wind power of sufficient capacity to produce our modern civilization and we could not depend on wood, for obvious reasons. We did not have a society based around oil in the 18th century. We had advancements in technology and an entry into the machine age - railroads needed more efficient things to burn to move trains so they moved from wood, to coal, to oil products including deisel to electric (generated by coal power plants). The same is true of other industries.

Why was gasoline used to power automobiles? Because there was no better, more efficient and plentiful fuel to power a car. Period. To make cars worthwhile you need a plentiful power source that can be easily distributed and stored and that can be quickly refilled into the vehicle. Batteries have always been a problem because they need to be re-charged, and even today there is no way to, in under 4 minutes, refuel the vehicle - typically any rechargeable battery system would have taken many hours to recharge. Coal was no good because you need too much of it (gasoline stores more energy in less volume). Other than, maybe, natural gas (another fossil fuel) gasoline is the best fuel for a vehicle - that's why it became so popular.

....so it would not be truly reflective of the cost/benefit analysis to just send them the bill without crediting them for the benefits to civilization that fossil fuel production have provided. I realize it is in vogue to demonize fossil fuels as the worst thing that ever happened to the US, and to phrase it in alarmist terms that we are "hooked" (like an addict) on fossil fuels, but the marked increase in standard of living is directly due to the discovery and processing of fossil fuels: light, heat, food, communication, travel, community -- all are based on our ability to produce and use energy. And most of our energy, about 85%, comes from fossil fuel. (Another 8% comes from nuclear power, and 7 % from all other sources, mostly hydroelectric power and wood.)

Our life styles are utterly dependent on cheap and effectively unlimited energy. "Utterly dependent" could be rephrased as "hooked".

Hooked implies an "addiction" which is an irrational dependency on a substance. People use the term hooked to conjure up images of a junky who is hooked on a drug (which provides nothing but surface "benefit" and is ultimately only harmful). Oil, however, has been extraordinarily beneficial to our way of life. We don't necessarily have to have oil, per se, to keep our way of life, but we do need gobs and gobs of energy.

Not all addictions are based on things that are inherently bad for you. Someone can also be an "excercise junkie", addicted to the high they get from excessive excercise. Excercise in the right amount is very beneficial, but if it's overdone it can be detrimental to your health.

Of course - but the term "addiction" is used because it is loaded. Nobody wants to be "addicted" to anything.

There's also a difference between the benefits that this flood of energy has provided, and the feeling of entitlement that many seem to have that they should be allowed to just continue to fritter it away without any attempt to limit frivolous activities.

What frivolous activities? The most frivolous activities - making movies, the music industry, vacations and tourism, etc., are among the least criticized. Most of our energy is used in such frivolous activities as "going to work" - heating/cooling a home - feeding kids and families - shopping - manufacturing things like cars and computers.

Come on, you're not even trying to understand my arguments here. None of those things is what I was thinking of. I'm talking frivolous things like energy inefficient appliances, gas guzzling cars, Las Vegas, you know things that add zero to anyone's quality of life.

Eliminate all those uses of fuel, and you'd have here a slight "plop" in the bucket.

I would wager that if we cut out the most useless half the products that the West consumes, no one would feel their quality of life reduced, yet we would save vast amounts of energy and resources. Same goes for other 'low hanging fruit' like simple energy efficiency. Yet we happily consume cheap products that add little if any value, and consume disproportionate amounts of energy and resources.

So what? That doesn't do us any real good long term since it only delays the problem. If you cut 1/2 our global oil usage, and we're supposed run out of oil in 50 years (to pick a number out of the air) then cutting the usage in 1/2 only gets us 100 years. That's nothing. If the problem we are faced with - peak oil in 10 or 20 years and dwindling supply after that is true, then we need to produce another energy source now.

I'm all for conservation, but it won't solve the problem at hand, will it? It will only delay the inevitable. So, what fuel do we use?

Noone wants to take away the benefits, which is why the solutions to both AGW and peak oil need to be very well thought out. But that's not happening. Instead we have selfish lobbying by industries, blind partisanism by politicians, and lethargy by the populace.

The solution is simple (but not necessarily easy): produce more energy from other sources, like nuclear.

The vast amount of energy placed at the disposal of humanity, through fire, could be, and was, used to revolutionize the nature of our existence. - Isaac Asimov

Fire enabled man to go global. Nor has the importance of fire diminished with time; rather the reverse. Wood was undoubtedly the first fuel used in building and maintaining a fire. Coal took primacy of place in the 17th century, joined by gas and oil in the 20th. Without it, we would not be able to, now, talk of changing over to nuclear and other alternative fuels to generate the power we need to sustain our standard of living (which in the West allows the common person to live as comfortably, and in some ways much better, than Kings and Queens prior to the industrial revolution).

This is how we got here, it's history. It does not mean that we continue doing it the same way. Slavery made many countries very wealthy - it's abolition was heralded as the end of prosperity. ho mum.

Of course - but, the answer is a replacement source of power.

Exactly, oil is but a stepping stone. Yet a lot of the denialists complain that if we wean ourselves of oil too fast our civilisation will collapse.

Some of the anti-oil groups out there do not think our civilization should continue. When they say we are living too extravagantly, they don't just mean the rich -t they mean the average western lifestyle. There is a modern Luddite movement.

None of the "denialists" would complain if there was a comparable source of fuel. If we could produce enough electricity to power all the motor vehicles, and if capacitor and superconductor technology continues to improve so that we can recharge batteries fast, then we could end all auto driven pollution. However, the problem is that even if we wanted to right now, we can't just make all cars electric. Why? Because we can't generate enough electricity, and the only way we'd be able to generate enough electricity is by burning coal to generate the electricity. There aren't enough solar panels and wind turbines in the world, and unless you want to convert the entire state of Arizona to solar and wind turbines, then there never will be.

If we make all cars electric, but still use fossil fuels to generate the electricity, then we still pollute just as much - actually more - because you lose power in the conversion of the energy from coal to electric.

How would you suggest we generate enough power to power all the motor vehicles in the US - or even 1/2 of them - on something other than a fossil fuel?

The thing that scares me is that we have this one chance to transition from a fossil fuel society to something more sustainable. Fossil fuesl are running out. But we must have suffient fossil fuels to establish the infrastructure for the next generation of energy providers. If we run out of fuel before this happens, it is unlikely to ever happen, because we've already extracted all the resources that are accessible without cheap fuel. So no second chances.

One word - nuclear. That's the answer for the near term (talking 100 years). Nuclear is the only viable way, at present, to generate enough power within the next 3-5 decades to cut our need for fossil fuels by any real percentage. If we build enough nuclear power plants, we could easily be rid (from a US perspective) of the need for foreign oil completely in 25 years. I think a lot of people on both sides of the political spectrum would love to see the US not have an economic incentive to mill about in the middle east, ay?

Quite possibly - but I'm still on the fence about nuclear.

Well, then suggest another option.

EDIT - Factman - I will address your post, but it will take me some time.

[Fact-Man]

Some of the anti-oil groups out there do not think our civilization should continue. When they say we are living too extravagantly, they don't just mean the rich -t they mean the average western lifestyle. There is a modern Luddite movement.

Fact is, we in the West are living too extravangantly, every last one of us. We're consuming more than half the raw materials and natural resources produced on the entire planet each year to support less than five per cent of the world's population in a consumer-driven culture that's well known to be profligately wasteful.

If that's not "extravagant" I don't know what would be.

The Planet Will Be Fine?

By Wallace J Nichols
Posted: April 26, 2010 03:42 PM
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/wallace-j ... 51206.html

Who came up with the meme "the planet will be fine," with its flip side tagline "it's the humans who need saving"? A marketing team for the status quo?

From a long view, one may feel perfectly comfortable with the idea that in one hundred thousand years or so, there will still be an Earth spinning in space. Orbiting the sun. With evolutionary processes of some sort happily taking place on its surface.

However, that doesn't translate cleanly back to the next seven human generations of life on Earth. Or even to the current generation.

The planet won't be fine. The planet, our planet right now, isn't fine. With or without us around, we've left an indelible mark that will be slow to fade.

Scientific American recently asked the question: is Earth past the tipping point? Among the topics discussed were biodiversity loss, land use, freshwater use, nitrogen and phosphorus cycles, stratospheric ozone, ocean acidification, climate change, chemical pollution and aerosol loading in the atmosphere.

Take just one aspect of our planetary un-fineness: plastic pollution. If all humans left the Earth tomorrow, the planet would be choking on our plastic for centuries. We currently use more than 250 million tons of plastic annually. So, conservatively, there must be several billion tons of accumulated plastic scattered about on Earth, even taking recycling into account. That's more than enough to wrap the entire planet in plastic wrap.

One of the principal qualities of plastic is that it lasts a very, very long time. Far into the future, even if plastic production ceased tomorrow, sea turtles will still be mistaking plastic bags for jellyfish. Albatross will still feed plastic to their young. Plastic nylon ghost nets will continue to drift and catch animals. Small fish will still be eating tiny plastic fragments, passing them up the food chain to larger fish and onto land via terrestrial predators.

Little by little, the plastic buried in our landfills will find its way out.

No one really knows what all this plastic pollution will look like in 100 years, let alone 1000 years or 10,000 years. That's because large scale use of plastic is just fifty years old. My educated guess is that it won't be "fine."

The planet is not and will not be "fine." We have created a lasting mess that is anything but "fine."

We have an awful lot of work to do to protect what's left, to clean up the pollution we have made, and to restore and repair what we have broken in nature.

It may feel good to tell ourselves that the planet will be fine. But, for the present, as well as the near and medium term future, that's just not true.

But, what should make you feel good is that momentum is building quickly to attack problems like plastic pollution, climate change and loss of biodiversity. Serious people are designing our post-plastic, post-fossil fuel society and our steady-state economy.

Every day people are waking up, connecting the dots and joining the movement towards cleaner living. Every year more communities around the world are making transitions towards true sustainability, shunning our old, dirty ways.

Now that sounds fine by me.

And me too.

Consumerism has driven enormous impacts on the biosphere, degrading ecosystems throough rapacious resource extraction processes at very turn, degrading biodiversity, and polluting what's left.

The sordid facts of this are nowhere to be found in the media and us Westerners remain wholly ignorant of the damage we have done and are doing to the planet every day, which cannot go on much longer, it isn't sustainable.

This is nor progess, this is devolution, this is ignorance and stupidity, all glossed over by a sea of trinkets at Wal Mart.

For starters:

Prosperity without Growth?
Victor Anderson interviews Professor Tim Jackson,
SDC Commissioner for Economics

Victor Anderson: The Sustainable Development Commission has just published a major report called Prosperity without Growth? I’m talking to the report’s author, Tim Jackson, the Economics Commissioner at the SDC. Tim, can you tell us what the SDC is saying about economic growth?

Tim Jackson: We’re saying it’s time to question it. The UK Government, like many governments around the world, has had a sort of unfailing allegiance to the idea that we must keep the economy growing at all costs, and it’s time to question that goal.

VA: And what do you think would happen if people came to the conclusion that economic growth was a bad thing? Wouldn’t that be a disaster for the economy?

TJ: Well of course at the moment we’ve got the reverse problem in the sense that we haven’t got an economy that is growing, so we do have to think a little about how to maintain economic stability and economic resilience. But actually the goal of the economy is not economic growth in itself: it’s believed that that’s going to give us prosperity, it’s going to
give us a good life, it’s going to give us the conditions in which we can flourish as human beings. And the point of our report is to say that that’s the goal that we should be going for - that the aim is to deliver the ability for people to flourish. But we can only do that within the limits of the natural environment, we can only do it within the ecological capabilities of the
planet. And at the moment we’re going in completely the wrong direction in ecological terms, and that is going to mean ultimately that we won’t have prosperity in any form if we don’t think more carefully about that relationship now.

VA: So what are you recommending that government should actually do?

TJ: Well I think what we’re saying is that we need to put prosperity itself at the heart of government policy, and that means understanding what prosperity means. Our report argues that it means we have to put people’s capability to flourish, to live well, at the heart of policy; so that they have, for example, a good work-life balance, that they are capable of integrating into their communities, that they have the necessities of life, of course. But it’s also vital that people can participate and take part fully in the life of society in ways that are less materialistic than they have done in the past. And so there are really three tasks for government: one is to fix the economics that we’ve been working on which assumes that we can grow consumption endlessly; the second is to go directly for the jugular - what matters is people’s capabilities to flourish, we should build those capabilities and protect peoples’ ability to flourish; the third key message is that government needs to establish the ecological limits.

At the moment some of those are half-established but most of them are just lying in the margin, we don’t know what our requirements are, what our limits are in terms of material throughputs, and we need to establish that.

VA: Why do you think nobody else seems to be saying this at the moment? What’s distinctive to the SDC here?

TJ: Why is no-one else saying it? Because it’s deeply unpopular. It may seem really inopportune to be asking this kind of question at a point when we just can’t seem to keep the economy growing at all, and that is a priority, it is a priority to have an economic system that works, because society relies on that economic system. And so the last thing in the world that anybody wants, and it’s certainly not what we’re advocating, is economic collapse. We know that when economies collapse it has social impacts and ultimately our report is attempting to forestall the time at which we will have economic collapse because we’re living beyond our means. But in the meantime, the reason why nobody asks the difficult questions that we are asking here is because nobody really has any answers to them.

VA: But isn’t the obvious answer that we should try to de-couple economic growth from its environmental impacts, so that we can square the circle between the economy and the environment?

TJ: That’s certainly the most common answer, in fact it’s the only answer that exists to this idea that actually we’re faced with quite a fundamental dilemma around growth, that growth seems to be necessary to keep the economy going on the one hand, but actually on the other hand it’s driving unsustainable throughputs. So yes, as you say, the answer that’s out there at the moment is that we de-couple, that we just continually keep growing the economy but make everything much more efficient in order to reduce its material impact. The evidence in our report is very strong that this just isn’t working – it’s not happening, we’re not decoupling the economy fast enough. Past trends suggest that there’s nothing like as much decoupling as we would need in order to stay within environmental limits, that globally many of the most important resource trends are going in the wrong direction. Actually, far from decoupling, we’re intensifying resource use associated with economic output, so whatever else we say about de-coupling, we have to say, ‘It ain’t working right now.’ And it doesn’t show any signs of working unless we really confront what’s going on within the economic system itself.

VA: What about poorer countries? Surely the lifting of millions of people out of poverty in China and in India is a good thing for the world.

TJ: It’s absolutely essential for the world. And in some sense that is the heart of Prosperity without Growth? Prosperity without Growth? is conceivable only in the richer nations, in the developed economies, in the advanced economies of the West. A key part of our argument, and it goes back to that question of fair allocation of resource throughputs, is that the developed world has to consider Prosperity without Growth? if the developing countries have any prospect at all of getting to the living standards we’ve enjoyed over the last fifty years.

VA: How hopeful are you that the report’s recommendations will be taken on by the Government?

TJ: Ultimately what we’ve pitched into is a debate which has gone on for thirty or forty years. It’s a long debate about the nature of progress, and it’s longer than that if you think of it in terms of what is the nature of progress, but certainly in terms of the role of growth it’s a debate that’s gone on for some time. It’s not an easy debate, we are locked into growth through all sorts of things, so it won’t be an easy debate to change overnight, it won’t be an easy model to change overnight. But I think the point at the moment particularly is that this is just a unique moment in history, it’s a moment in history in which the world as we know it in economic terms has almost literally collapsed, and we are desperately in need of solutions which make sense, not just in economic terms but in social terms, in terms of fairness across the world, in terms of breaching ecological limits: in terms of all the things we’re talking about, there is a really challenging need for opening out a policy debate for moving forward the discussion on this question, for putting in place clear pragmatic steps that would take ustowards a different kind of prosperity. And ultimately I think that’s the goal of our report: not to change things overnight - that’s too ambitious – but to create the space within which it’s possible to have this discussion now, when we need it the most.

VA: Thank you, Tim.

It would be great to have a thread on this topic, but every time I've started one it has died a quick death because nobody seems the slightest bit interested, which I find to be rather revealing.

You can download a PDF of the SDC's report "Prosperity Without Growth" from: http://www.sd-commission.org.uk/publications.php?id=914

[Twiglet]

Fact Man, if you want to post on the zero growth model, I will certainly participate on that one. I've been following those arguments closely in relation to carbon emission reduction.

[macdoc]

See I disagree with Factman in some regards.

I see no issue with having the same level of convenience we enjy now but in a sustainable manner.

Sweden and Norway are committed to carbon neutral industrial societies and I see no reason a nuclear/renewable society with sustainable practices cannot be built.

Population IS an issue..China has taken some steps - Japan and couple of others are facing a reduction in population.

Step one is to get rid of coal.
Step two protect the oceans - at the very least with much larger reserves - the ocean can rebuild quickly from seeded areas.
Even some parts of Europe are re-foresting and coming into a better balance of cultivated and wild ( not wilderness - not much of that left )

I am encouraged that the world is urbanizing rapidly - even Canada.
Sustainable cities are the key.

Copenhagen and Portland Oregon are leading ..we are however a long ways away.

I have no time for shivering the dark scenarios.
If Cuba could get through it then our more advanced tech can do so as well.

•••

It would be great to have a thread on this topic, but every time I've started one it has died a quick death because nobody seems the slightest bit interested, which I find to be rather revealing.

cuz you wanna toss the technology baby out with the bathwater - it should be revealing that people don't buy your anti-capitalist rants...try a different tack this time...

[Twiglet]

Extract from an article follows. Some figures may be out of date as the original was published 2007. Numbers in parenthesis denote references which can be followed from the original, found here: http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2007/10 ... recession/

Climate change does not lead only to a decline in welfare: beyond a certain point it causes its termination. In other words, it threatens the lives of hundreds of millions of people. However hard governments might work to reduce carbon emissions, they are battling the tide of economic growth. While the rate of growth in the use of energy declines as an economy matures, no country has yet managed to reduce energy use while raising gross domestic product. The UK’s carbon dioxide emissions are higher than they were in 1997(3), partly as a result of the 60 successive quarters of growth that Gordon Brown keeps boasting about. A recession in the rich nations might be the only hope we have of buying the time we need to prevent runaway climate change.

The massive improvements in human welfare - better housing, better nutrition, better sanitation and better medicine - over the past 200 years are the result of economic growth and the learning, spending, innovation and political empowerment it has permitted. But at what point should it stop? In other words, at what point do governments decide that the marginal costs of further growth exceed the marginal benefits? Most of them have no answer to this question. Growth must continue, for good or ill. It seems to me that in the rich nations we have already reached the logical place to stop.

I now live in one of the poorest places in Britain. The teenagers here have expensive haircuts, fashionable clothes and mobile phones. Most of those who are old enough have cars, which they drive incessantly and write off every few weeks. Their fuel and insurance bills must be astronomical. They have been liberated from the horrible poverty their grandparents suffered, and this is something we should celebrate and must never forget. But with one major exception, can anyone argue that the basic needs of everyone in the rich nations cannot now be met?

The exception is housing, and in this case the growth in value is one of the reasons for exclusion. A new analysis by Goldman Sachs shows that current house prices are not just the result of a shortage of supply: if they were, then the rise in prices should have been matched by the rise in rents. Even taking scarcity into account, the analysts believe that houses are overvalued by some 20%(4).

Governments love growth because it excuses them from dealing with inequality. As Henry Wallich, a governor of the US Federal Reserve, once pointed out in defending the current economic model, “growth is a substitute for equality of income. So long as there is growth there is hope, and that makes large income differentials tolerable”(5). Growth is a political sedative, snuffing out protest, permitting governments to avoid confrontation with the rich, preventing the construction of a just and sustainable economy. Growth has permitted the social stratification which even the Daily Mail now laments.

Is there anything which could sensibly be described as welfare that the rich can now gain? A month ago the Financial Times ran a feature on how department stores are trying to cater for “the consumer who has Arrived”(6). But the unspoken theme of the article is that no one arrives - the destination keeps shifting. The problem, an executive from Chanel explained, is that luxury has been “over-democratised.” The rich are having to spend more and more to distinguish themselves from the herd: in the US the market in goods and services designed for this purpose is worth £720bn a year. To ensure that you cannot be mistaken for a lesser being, you can now buy gold and diamond saucepans from Harrods. Without conscious irony, the article was illustrated with a photograph of a coffin. It turns out to be a replica of Lord Nelson’s coffin, carved from wood taken from the ship on which he died, and yours for a fortune in a new, hyper-luxury department of Selfridges. Sacrificing your health and happiness to earn the money to buy this junk looks like a sign of advanced mental illness.

Is it not time to recognise that we have reached the promised land, and should seek to stay there? Why would we want to leave this place in order to explore the blackened wastes of consumer frenzy followed by ecological collapse? Surely the rational policy for the governments of the rich world is now to keep growth rates as close to zero as possible?

But because political discourse is controlled by people who put the accumulation of money above all other ends, this policy appears to be impossible. Unpleasant as it will be, it is hard to see what except an accidental recession could prevent economic growth from blowing us through Canaan and into the desert on the other side.

[Fact-Man]

It would be great to have a thread on this topic, but every time I've started one it has died a quick death because nobody seems the slightest bit interested, which I find to be rather revealing.

cuz you wanna toss the technology baby out with the bathwater - it should be revealing that people don't buy your anti-capitalist rants...try a different tack this time...

Were you born rude or have you just been practicing your whole life?

In fact, in my view we have to use technology to a far greater extent than we do today if we hope to establish a truly sustainable economy. I guess you missed that part, either that or your accusation is invented for the convenience of your idolotry of market economics. In any event it is a big fat lie.

You keep insisting that the economy that's trashed the planet, wasted enormous gobs of precious resources, damaged or destroyed 60 per cent of earth's ecosystems, spewed enough GHGs into the atmsophere to place us all at risk, and left people feeling depressed, isolated, and unhappy and often suffering deep economic travail, is the be-all and end-all of economy.

Hmm, that's quite a leap it seems to me, sounds a lot like a Wall Street banker to my ear or someone who's heavily invested in the status quo and fears losing it all, or perhaps someone who's just short on imagination and creativity, someone who's lacking in vision.

Now the gentleman who posted this:

Fact Man, if you want to post on the zero growth model, I will certainly participate on that one. I've been following those arguments closely in relation to carbon emission reduction.

appears to not agree with you, M-Doc; he appears to think the discussion I envision as being one that has some merit, or at the least the potential to perhaps see better, more modern ways of doing economy.

You have always been the problem, because every time I've started such a thread it has been you that's barged into it, derailed it, and otherwise obfuscated the matter so thoroughly that people drifted away, unable to tolerate your constant whining, condescending dinosaur-talk, and capitalist apologia. You even barged in here, right on cue, and began with a lie. Why am I not surprised?

Now, if you wish to start a thread on the glories of capitalism, go right ahead, I'll not interfere (I have little interest in dicussing 17th century economics, you see), and should I happen to start a thread in which to explore the idea of a no-growth sustainable economy of new invention, that is, a truly modern system, I'd appreciate it if you'd keep your snarky nose out of it and let us more modern thinkers get on with what we wish to discuss without your interference.

Any true gentleman on earth would respect this request. Let's see how much of a gentleman you can be.

Thank you very much.




.

[Tigger]

This isn't directed at anyone, but I never cease to be amazed by all the bickering. Really. I'd expect it in a religious sense where there is no possible relevant science, but in a thread like this? It'd be really good to just discuss the topic rather than slagging one another off. It's derailing, and makes it all hard to follow for anyone who might like to.

[Reverend Blair]

This isn't directed at anyone, but I never cease to be amazed by all the bickering.

I ceased to be amazed a long time ago, now I'm just entertained. I think it helps if you drink.

I see no issue with having the same level of convenience we enjy now but in a sustainable manner.

What is the the sustainable manner for this level of convenience at this level of population? I mean, I really don't want to go back to some sort of pre-industrial society. Horses and oxen are too much fucking work and I've already split enough firewood for one lifetime, thanks. I've seen no evidence that we can live sustainably at present levels though. In fact, from everything I've seen, zero growth isn't enough of a reduction. We need some serious negative growth. Either that or I need to start carving an ox yoke.

[Twiglet]

Sustainability can be approached from making use of the ideas we have already to do the same things using less energy. Passivhaus design standards are a good example. Using less energy, getting more of it from renewable sources and conserving oil resources for things like plastics and pharmaceuticals rather than putting it through internal combustion engines.

It's also worth pointing out that reversion to the ox and chopping wood by hand are the likely consequence of depleting all our resources before developing sustainable alternative.

[macdoc]

What is the the sustainable manner for this level of convenience at this level of population? I mean, I really don't want to go back to some sort of pre-industrial society. Horses and oxen are too much fucking work and I've already split enough firewood for one lifetime, thanks. I've seen no evidence that we can live sustainably at present levels though. In fact, from everything I've seen, zero growth isn't enough of a reduction. We need some serious negative growth. Either that or I need to start carving an ox yoke.

Populations will start drifting down and are now - Japan notably.

Cuba IS sustainable now tho at a level that's a bit ascetic.

If Sweden ad Norway think they can go carbon neutral by mid-century then that's a goal to start.

With sufficient power almost any level of human population is sustainable. Our biggest issue is ignorance and poor governance and the latter includes many western nations.

Cuba and China and to a degree France have authoritarian govs that can and do make strong changes without the bickering, indecision and legal wrangling that plagues "democracies" which more and more are resembling debating societies with neither the will nor the ability to govern.

There are not many tech barriers - there are many ignorance and irresponsibility barriers...you and I will be gone when the worst of the shite hits the windmill.
Easter Islanders managed to kill themselves off in a tropical paradise by being stoopid ...doubtful the great unwashed including in the first world are much better

BTW ox carts in Cuba are a ver relaxing way to get around.

[macdoc]

Twiglet...there is lots of oil about and lots of substitutes. Cheap oil peak is here already but with newly discovered immense reserves of natural gas the SASOil synthethic approach offers decades of oil for industrial use.
Weaning off transport and home heating is the issue.
Coal s the largest enemy of the bio-sphere far and away.

Fresh water is an issue right now as is land/forest husbandry over time.

India and China and Australia are facing the first right now.
Zimbabwe is the poster horror for the latter as well as Southern Iraq and some parts of the Amazon.