The Quest for Resilience – What Could Possibly Go Wrong?

How will oil depletion affect the way we live? What will the economic impact be? How will agriculture change? Will we thrive or merely survive?

Moderator: Peak Moderation

kenneal - lagger
Site Admin
Posts: 14290
Joined: 20 Sep 2006, 02:35
Location: Newbury, Berkshire
Contact:

Re: The Quest for Resilience – What Could Possibly Go Wrong?

Post by kenneal - lagger »

Perhaps the sanctions should have been stronger to put Putin off. That may have been a Chamberlain moment.
Action is the antidote to despair - Joan Baez
User avatar
Catweazle
Posts: 3388
Joined: 17 Feb 2008, 12:04
Location: Petite Bourgeois, over the hills

Re: The Quest for Resilience – What Could Possibly Go Wrong?

Post by Catweazle »

Half-hearted sanctions aren't going to work against a country that is prepared to trade citizens lives for political ends. No wonder they think the West is decadent, we watch a country being pounded to rubble rather than put on extra wooly jumpers for a couple of years.
User avatar
BritDownUnder
Posts: 2479
Joined: 21 Sep 2011, 12:02
Location: Hunter Valley, NSW, Australia

Re: The Quest for Resilience – What Could Possibly Go Wrong?

Post by BritDownUnder »

I think sanctions always work to some extent. During the Cold War the Soviet Union was effectively under sanction for technological items and at some times, even grain (back in the day when they could not produce enough grain for themselves).

Sanctioning Russian gas has the effect of depriving the Russians of hard cash with which to buy European technological items such as German machine tools and French made Airbuses for example. Instead they may have to sell the gas to China at a much lower cost and accept cheaper and lower quality Chinese manufactures as a result.

I see no problem with a bit of austerity and autarky in Europe for a few years. It may bring some manufacturing jobs back if the sanctions extend to China. Perhaps those woolly jumpers could be made in the UK rather than China for a change.

I hear the UK has stopped the ban on muckspreading due to lack of fertilizer. Perhaps they should realise the amount of fertilizer that gets flushed down the toilets every day.
G'Day cobber!
kenneal - lagger
Site Admin
Posts: 14290
Joined: 20 Sep 2006, 02:35
Location: Newbury, Berkshire
Contact:

Re: The Quest for Resilience – What Could Possibly Go Wrong?

Post by kenneal - lagger »

There is talk in the Min of Ag that the regulations on muck spreading are to be relaxed. The spreading of sewage sludge has to be strictly regulated to stop the build up of heavy metals in the sludge from industry. Companies are given limits on the amount of chemical pollution that they can dump down the drain for sewage works to deal with.

Those companies have to treat their sewage to get below the imposed limits and dispose of the pollution separately so why not stop them putting any chemicals down the drain entirely. We could then use sewage sludge much more widely without problems.
Action is the antidote to despair - Joan Baez
User avatar
BritDownUnder
Posts: 2479
Joined: 21 Sep 2011, 12:02
Location: Hunter Valley, NSW, Australia

Re: The Quest for Resilience – What Could Possibly Go Wrong?

Post by BritDownUnder »

It sounds like the mixing of industrial effluent with the domestic stuff is the reason behind sewage sludge not being spread (after harmful pathogens being neutralised - of course) over the fields then.

I would have thought that Chemists in the UK and elsewhere would have come up with a way of capturing phosphates and potassium from effluent by now. Clearly not.
G'Day cobber!
Post Reply