"Thinking The Unthinkable" article

Totally_Baffled · Post by **Totally_Baffled** » 24 Jul 2006, 14:03

skeptik wrote:
Totally_Baffled wrote: What is rich?
I think it was Pippa that asked this

Ok - lets rephrase, what is a rich country?

The US is supposed to be the "richest" country on earth - yet owes more money than any other in absolute and percentage terms.

They will be asking for debt relief soon!

PaulS · Post by **PaulS** » 24 Jul 2006, 14:15

Much as I agree with much described by Norman Church, I think that he may not be pessimistic enough!

I have come to the conclusion that human society will respond to Peak Oil by exploiting any other source of energy available, regardless of its effect on the planet. I should think we will see coal being used on a massive scale (and you can see that in China already), heavy oils, tar sands and any other marginal dirty source of energy will be used in a desperate struggle by governments and corporations to keep the existing system going.

That will of course drive emissions of all kinds well beyond the tipping point and later this century our children and grandchildren will see the Earth beneath their feet melt in the heat.

This alone will threaten the survival of not just civilization, but human kind as such, and indeed most other species as well.

But worse is possible. If the heating effect is really severe, we might be sentencing the Earth to a fate similar to that of Venus. (Could it be that Venus once had a civilization?)

MacG · Post by **MacG** » 24 Jul 2006, 14:55

PaulS wrote:I have come to the conclusion that human society will respond to Peak Oil by exploiting any other source of energy available, regardless of its effect on the planet. I should think we will see coal being used on a massive scale (and you can see that in China already), heavy oils, tar sands and any other marginal dirty source of energy will be used in a desperate struggle by governments and corporations to keep the existing system going.

I'm not so sure about that. In order to exploit dirty energy, there has to be an infrastructure. The chances for an economic collapse are pretty high methink, and when reading Dmitry Orlov's description of the Soviet collapse, economic collapses nowdays results in clean air!

PaulS wrote:That will of course drive emissions of all kinds well beyond the tipping point and later this century our children and grandchildren will se the Earth beneath their feet melt in the heat.

This alone will threaten the survival of not just civilization, but human kind as such, and indeed most other species as well.

But worst is possible. If the heating effect is really severe, we might be sentencing the Earth to a fate similar to that of Venus. (Could it be that Venus once had a civilization?)

Dont worry. All this about AGW is just a hoax. Junk science. The idea was coined by Svante Arrhenius in the 1890's, but was thoroughly refuted by Knut ?ngstr?m in 1900 (not that it stopped Arrhenius from yapping about it).

Knut ?ngstr?m produced an IR spectra from CO2 showing two absorption bands complete with absorbance values, and he could conclude that if you look down at earth from 100 meters, the IR absorbtion is close to 100% in those bands at much lower CO2 concentrations than those in 1900. Black is black. It does not matter if you increase CO2 a hundred times, it's impossible to absorb more than 100% of the outgoing radiation.

Considering the thousands of scientists who make a living from the current scare mongering, it's highly unlikely that anyone of them would learn some basic spectroscopy.

Edit: Venus is MUCH closer to the sun and have a 90 bar atmosphere which actually isolate the planet and reflect the radiation from the sun. That's why Venus is so bright in the sky. The temperature might very well come from the inside the planet.

GD · Post by GD » 24 Jul 2006, 15:14

MacG wrote:
PaulS wrote:I have come to the conclusion that human society will respond to Peak Oil by exploiting any other source of energy available, regardless of its effect on the planet. I should think we will see coal being used on a massive scale (and you can see that in China already), heavy oils, tar sands and any other marginal dirty source of energy will be used in a desperate struggle by governments and corporations to keep the existing system going.
I'm not so sure about that. In order to exploit dirty energy, there has to be an infrastructure. The chances for an economic collapse are pretty high methink, and when reading Dmitry Orlov's description of the Soviet collapse, economic collapses nowdays results in clean air!

Not so sure about that:

The State of Russia:

Despite Mikhail Gobachev's attempts to prioritize environmental concerns, the condition of the land, water and air in Russia is amongst the
worst in the world, and is deteriorating. Super-polluting factories which were shut down for environmental reasons have been reopened in exactly the same condition. The quality of food and water available to the population is heavily compromised; people have neither the means nor the motivation to put things right. As Vladimir Tsirkunov of the World Bank noted: 'If you are dying of hunger, what do you care if you are going to die of cancer in ten years time. Environment is an abandoned child.'

ianryder · Post by **ianryder** » 24 Jul 2006, 15:21

MacG wrote:All this about AGW is just a hoax

What an amazing coincidence that everything IS warming just at the very moment we are spewing more stuff out into the atmosphere.

Whether some of the science is leaky doesn't matter - if you're wrong, and we listen to you, we're toast. If we listen to most of the scientific community and actually do something, we might just be slightly less than toast...and the place might actually be a bit nicer along the way.

As for Russia, aren't they supposed to have similar polution levels per capita as the US but significantly lower consumption levels...

Post by **mikepepler** » 24 Jul 2006, 16:03

Please, let's not have another thread hijacked by the "for/against anthropogenic climate change" debate.

There are other threads on the forum where this is already being discussed at length.

ianryder · Post by **ianryder** » 24 Jul 2006, 16:05

She started it

Pippa · Post by **Pippa** » 24 Jul 2006, 16:16

Oh no I didn't

skeptik · Post by **skeptik** » 24 Jul 2006, 17:02

That's the way to do it!

enso · Post by **enso** » 24 Jul 2006, 21:57

Bringing this thread back on topic, whilst I think that the pessimistic future scenarios proposed are possible, in fact are probable, I do not think that the problems of fossil-fuel depletion are theoretically unsurmountable. However, in order to find solutions society has to be aware of the problem and have a willingness to undertake massive change in how and why we do everything. The present economic and financial systems squander natural resources through short-termism, inefficiency and false accounting of energy/natural systems.

I think there is a chance, albeit slim, that when the penny finally drops with the masses in the UK, then they will be prepared to change. Full-on doomers seem quick to point out that humans are greedy, selfish, violent and anarchy will reign. I think that we often forget that adversity can bring out the best in people and that humans demonstrate qualities such as teamwork, intelligence, problem-solving, charity, self-sacrifice and loyalty.

There may be many ways of doing things differently such as vertical farming, reliance on mass-transit and bicycles instead of cars, local manufacture and agricultural supply-chains etc. Of course, the sooner we can start to prepare for life after oil the better - using our fossil-fuel inheritance to construct a self-sustaining post-carbon infrastructure instead of blowing it on the consumer party.

I would rather we have a possible positive vision of a post-carbon world, at least in our own country, than just wallowing in the doom-mongering all the time. The pessimistic scenarios are just that, scenarios. But we can use them to guide ourselves onto another path - a less unpleasant road to a new type of civilization.

I am clearly striving to remain a "glass half-full" type of person but otherwise I'd just go mad!

Pippa · Post by **Pippa** » 24 Jul 2006, 23:15

If you have a load of food or a bike or a car full of petrol or what ever else I think that I might need (gold maybe or a shed full of paper money) then I can, if I am clever or scarey enough, take it from you.

But what next?

If things go tits up how long can the anachy last?

Before too long people will have to start to co-operate especially when they realise we are all in the same boat.

singing

Row, row, row the boat, gently down the stream, we are all in the same shit, save me whilst I scream........

PaulS · Post by **PaulS** » 24 Jul 2006, 23:45

I think we have two different issues being confused a little:
a) Government action, world wide and thus likelihood of avoiding climate flip by limiting emissions, developing alternative energy plan and
b) individual reactions under stress: both short term (shortages/ cold/ hunger) and longer term (climate change)

I am very pessimistic about a). No government is as yet taking PO seriously. There isn't even a political party we could vote for that takes PO as seriously as is required (and that includes the Greens).

How can we expect that 300+ governments world-wide are going to reach a serious agreement on drastic action on something they, nor their oppositions, as yet perceive as a really important danger.

Yes, some politicians are beginning to pay lip service to 'climate change' and even 'possible future energy shortages', but none take it anywhere nearly as seriously as, for example, the Israeli invasion of Lebanon, or how many millions the NHS owes.

Of course the fact is that if they really realized just how overwhelmingly important PO is, they would just sweep all these other minor destruction aside (and yes that includes the 300+ deaths in Lebanon) and devote 50%+ of their efforts (and cash?) to finding the possible mitigation (no solution, just mitigation) of the problem.

And this would have to happen in most countries of the world at about the same time. Can you see that? No way.

As for b), yes locally, if you actually know your 100 or at least 10 of your neighbours by name and frequently share/ help each other, then yes, you've got a good chance of forming a self-reliant local support group. And just may be you will die in your bed instead of defending your veg plot!

snow hope · Post by **snow hope** » 25 Jul 2006, 00:05

I agree there is a chance Enso.

I love your thought, "I think that we often forget that adversity can bring out the best in people and that humans demonstrate qualities such as teamwork, intelligence, problem-solving, charity, self-sacrifice and loyalty."

Oh, I wish for that to be the case. But when I try to visualise it, I just think that the humans of the 1940s/50s were certainly capable of that, but the humans of the nineties or the noughties? I don't think so...... sometimes I think maybe I am being too cynical (comes with middle age!), but then I think of the cities and what would I do if I couldn't get enough food for my wife and three boys?

I know what I would do - if I and my family were hungry and hadn't eaten for a couple of days then I would go out and get food where-ever I could - if that meant raiding somebodies field or shoplifting or stealing from somebody to feed my family, then I know I would do it and I bet most people would - hands up who wouldn't?!

Lets not forget that 150 years ago, many very poor people had to nick and steal odds and ends of food when they got half a chance. When you are hungry and have no money in your pocket you can become very resourceful for solving the stomach pains.

We are different now. We have come so far. It will take a long time and a lot of chaos, hardship and adjustment to revert to the situation I quoted above. I am not at all sure it will be achieved before a die-off.

But I hope I am wrong and you are right (and the word hope is a big understatement).

skeptik · Post by **skeptik** » 25 Jul 2006, 00:09

enso wrote: I am clearly striving to remain a "glass half-full" type of person but otherwise I'd just go mad!

Stay with it!...so am I in an eeyores gloomy place sort of way.

Doomers do I think also underetimate human resilience and ingenuity when the chips are down. At the start of WW2 the British authorities seriously thought that Mass bombing of the British cities would result in a panic, collapse of morale, collapse of society, loss of productive capacity for the war effort. In fact, exactly the opposite happened.

If there is clarity in objective, as there was during WW2, stress can make society close ranks, put aside differences for the duration of the emergency. Pull together.

PaulS · Post by **PaulS** » 25 Jul 2006, 00:24

If there is clarity in objective, as there was during WW2, stress can make society close ranks, put aside differences for the duration of the emergency.

You are so right, skeptic. IF there is clarity.
The easiest way of obtaining clarity is to have an externals enemy.
However, it needs to be genuine, otherwise the government loses trust, as we know from WOMD and also the war on terrorism.

Problem is, can PO or even 'climate change' be turned into such an external enemy?
Even if it could, are governments showing any signs of attempting to do so?

As far as I can so, the answer to both questions is a resounding NO