'Enjoy life while you can'

[Cabrone]

I think he's far closer to reality than most.

He's just telling it the way it is and lots of people don't like it.

[MacG]

I think Lovelock got a high from his celebrity status and lost all ability to think. He appeared with some stupid claim that "we should be happy if 20% of the people living today will survive in 2050", as if it would be some kind of disaster. Well, when considering normal demographics, I would expect LESS than 20% of the people living today to survive to 2050. Most of us will die from completely natural causes in the 42 years to come.

I've seen you make that intentional misinterpretation before - he doesn't mean the actual people alive today, he means cutting down the 6.6bn to 1.3bn.

Well, I think the jury is still out on the issue. It might be a journalistic misinterpetation or it might be sloppy thinking from Lovelock.

[leroy]

Lovelock's predictions do not seem implausible to me. My only basis is having read the IPCC's last report and the interpretation of what different temperature increases could do in 'Six Degrees' by Mark Lynas. We seem be following temperature rises at the higher end of the IPCC's projected scenarios, so I can easily see Italy, Spain, Greece &tc. becoming deserts by mid-century.

[SunnyJim]

I think he's largely right. Look at what people are doing in the face of this catastrophe. I mean how the hell is buying a prius going to save the world? I don't see anyone taking to horseback, or giving up their cars. I don't even see people cutting down on flights. The 'Open Skies' policy shows that rather than making cuts and trying to do something about climate change, we will actually accelerate towards the problem like lemmings to the cliff.

Unless we restrict the supply side we're just pissing around at feeling good. And who are we to restrict the supply side? The UK has little left to restrict. The major producing countries are already desertified with little water and an inhospitable climate. What have they got to loose? If they stop selling oil, they can't support their population. If they continue to export it gets a bit hotter.

His scientific methods may be non-existant, but the problem of global warming will largely be dictated by politics, globalisation and big business. It will only be measured and documented by science. And photographed along the way for posterity. Our response so far is so very tiny as to be non-existant.

[clv101]

The major producing countries are already desertified with little water and an inhospitable climate. What have they got to loose?

An interesting observation. Maybe what they have to lose is a prosperous ?rest of the world? with which to trade.

[SunnyJim]

The major producing countries are already desertified with little water and an inhospitable climate. What have they got to loose?

An interesting observation. Maybe what they have to lose is a prosperous ?rest of the world? with which to trade.

Well indeed. But what is their alternative? Stop trading now and ask for hand outs? Will the US and China decide to pay OPEC to keep the oil where it is? I doubt it. OPEC's only option is to keep on selling until it's gone isn't it? While I don't doubt the need to limit the supply side, I can't see a practical way of making it happen. Unless we simply pump the wells so quickly that we destroy them. Or make the well zones war zones too dangerous to produce in.

I'm having a bit of a pessemistic day to day. Saw kids fighting over resources at a 4 year olds party.... always an awakener. Deep down you kind of know that it is a more honest display of human nature than you see in adults politely turning down the last bit of pizza.

[emordnilap]

I'm having a bit of a pessemistic day to day. Saw kids fighting over resources at a 4 year olds party.... always an awakener. Deep down you kind of know that it is a more honest display of human nature than you see in adults politely turning down the last bit of pizza.

Only today? They're getting more frequent here. Perhaps it's the weather.

I predict world war three before 2030 and quite possibly before 2020.

[RenewableCandy]

I'm having a bit of a pessemistic day to day. Saw kids fighting over resources at a 4 year olds party....

That's not human nature that's too many bloody additives in the food, making the kids hyper (unless it was your own homemade in which case you really are in trouble...)

[clv101]

I predict world war three before 2030 and quite possibly before 2020.

What's your description of world war three? Terms like that don't have a commonly accepted definition.

[emordnilap]

I predict world war three before 2030 and quite possibly before 2020.

What's your description of world war three? Terms like that don't have a commonly accepted definition.

The main power blocs squabbling over remaining resources. US, EU, China, possibly Russia.

[Adam1]

I predict world war three before 2030 and quite possibly before 2020.

What's your description of world war three? Terms like that don't have a commonly accepted definition.

The main power blocs squabbling over remaining resources. US, EU, China, possibly Russia.

At the last APPGOPO meeting, which was about peak oil and international conflict, the speakers were quite bullish about the low risk of a major global conflict taking place directly between the major power blocs.

They pointed to China's use of non-military means to secure oil supplies as least as if not more effectively than the US is. I'd add that the EU are the other big bloc which favours soft power over hard power.

Having thought about it over the last few days, I still have a feeling that when their backs are up against the wall, the US may, out of habit and because of the momentum of decades of bloated, military-industrial complex spending, go down the military route. They are the wild card. They have the military muscle. Many in their power elite have a messianic belief system. As Kunstler observes, they seem particularly bad at accepting a painful change that will hit them very hard. In addition to the peak oil induced changes, the US is in the process of losing its imperial role. As the Russians are showing and the British showed, it takes a society a long time to accept that they have lost their empire.

[emordnilap]

What's your description of world war three? Terms like that don't have a commonly accepted definition.

The main power blocs squabbling over remaining resources. US, EU, China, possibly Russia.

At the last APPGOPO meeting, which was about peak oil and international conflict, the speakers were quite bullish about the low risk of a major global conflict taking place directly between the major power blocs.

They pointed to China's use of non-military means to secure oil supplies as least as if not more effectively than the US is. I'd add that the EU are the other big bloc which favours soft power over hard power.

Having thought about it over the last few days, I still have a feeling that when their backs are up against the wall, the US may, out of habit and because of the momentum of decades of bloated, military-industrial complex spending, go down the military route. They are the wild card. They have the military muscle. Many in their power elite have a messianic belief system. As Kunstler observes, they seem particularly bad at accepting a painful change that will hit them very hard. In addition to the peak oil induced changes, the US is in the process of losing its imperial role. As the Russians are showing and the British showed, it takes a society a long time to accept that they have lost their empire.

Fair enough. Can't see it myself but it is Monday morning and I did cycle the here to work in blinding snow.

If they say there's a 'low risk' then I'm going to be proved right, amn't I? You know how these things work. If it's denied, it must be true.

Can't help thinking of the reasons for Adolph H's rise to power.

Resource wars are under way as we speak. Britain is guilty over Iraq.

Russia etc.

And the Falklands, well! Was that plain stupidity or what? Jingoism lies just beneath the surface of your average joe.

Typed Flaklands first.

[Dan McNeil]

If anything, he's underselling it. Why? Because people won't accept the reality - as if (judging by the majority of posts here) they even accept the sanitized version.

[Adam1]

Leo Hickman's response to Lovelock...


http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/leo ... elock.html

[Totally_Baffled]

The major producing countries are already desertified with little water and an inhospitable climate. What have they got to loose?

An interesting observation. Maybe what they have to lose is a prosperous ?rest of the world? with which to trade.

Maybe it would be "easier" to persuade coal producers to keep it in the ground rather than oil producers to keep oil in the ground?

They have plenty to lose via climate change - and IIRC, it is coal that is the issue not oil?

If the ASPO figures turn out to be correct for oil and gas, then there isnt enough to cause big issues as per the IPCC scenarios - but there is more than enough coal?

The big coal players are the US, Australia, China and I think also Russia have large reserves. Certainly the first three have water issues due to lack of of precipitation and too much hot weather (possibly due to CC - but certainly could be made a lot worse by it!).

Maybe this would be a more worthwhile focus - getting on the backs of the coal producers/burners AND get ALL countries to focus on NON COAL ELECTRICITY - which is what the majority is burned for?