Russia-in-secret-plot-against-fracking-Nato-chief-says

[emordnilap]

Sort-of, Steve, I know what you're saying. I tend to see it in these terms: a lot more people - most people - have to produce their own food, build their own shelters and make their own clothes. And this they have to do using (largely) the energy they get from their (mostly local) food. Not entirely - we still have knowledge about how to concentrate the sun's energy. I don't see anything intrinsically wrong with that narrow scenario and, incidentally, we should be happy if we're allowed that solution, which is far from guaranteed.

Land produces food if we either: inject huge amounts of fossil fuels or inject huge amounts of human labour. Which option is a long-term solution?

Using collectivisation - most people spending their time growing crops, others making products from those crops and far fewer living off the back of them - this planet could easily support 7+ billion. Simply by rapidly using energy resources for no long-term gain, we are forcing ourselves towards this experiment.

Whoever's nearest correct won't matter a damn unless we collectively prevent climate change, of course.

[UndercoverElephant]

I think it's worse than that EM. We can;t run our world for very much longer on hydrocarbon-fuelled BAU. But, neither can we run it on renewable. I am very much a believer in the economic view of history. That is to say, the reason we didn't have tractors and electricity in ancient Egypt is not because they had not yet learned enough about physics and engineering. It was because they did not have access to sufficient energy to make it worthwhile developing knowledge in such fields...

I can't agree with that. The energy, in the form of coal, was always there. But if you don't know how to make a steam engine, you can't do much with that coal. The industrial revolution happened because the scientific revolution happened. And why did the scientific revolution happen? That's not a simple question to answer, but the answer certainly isn't "because new forms of energy became available."

[Little John]

I think it's worse than that EM. We can;t run our world for very much longer on hydrocarbon-fuelled BAU. But, neither can we run it on renewable. I am very much a believer in the economic view of history. That is to say, the reason we didn't have tractors and electricity in ancient Egypt is not because they had not yet learned enough about physics and engineering. It was because they did not have access to sufficient energy to make it worthwhile developing knowledge in such fields...

I can't agree with that. The energy, in the form of coal, was always there. But if you don't know how to make a steam engine, you can't do much with that coal. The industrial revolution happened because the scientific revolution happened. And why did the scientific revolution happen? That's not a simple question to answer, but the answer certainly isn't "because new forms of energy became available."

Yeah, okay, I should backtrack on that a little perhaps and say that it took a combination of surplus energy plus an enlightened culture that was based on various philosophies of reason and empiricism. I would still argue, however, that in the absence of relatively plentiful energy, such a culture would have had much greater difficulty in evolving in the first place. No surprise, then, that it developed in a green and verdant (in other words, resource/energy rich) Northern Europe.

[vtsnowedin]

Land produces food if we either: inject huge amounts of fossil fuels or inject huge amounts of human labour. Which option is a long-term solution?

But how do you equate the fossil fuel to the labor. Do you grow enough food to feed the huge number of laborers? The old put four big guys in a small car and drive it until it runs out of gas, then have the four guys push the car back to the gas pump problem.

Using collectivisation - most people spending their time growing crops, others making products from those crops and far fewer living off the back of them - this planet could easily support 7+ billion. Simply by rapidly using energy resources for no long-term gain, we are forcing ourselves towards this experiment.

The ideal ratios between people growing crops and those making tools and shelter for them as well as health care workers and education etc. will change but it will certainly never be a majority growing crops. Based on the experience of the USSR I for one never want to depend on collective farms for my food supply.

[AndySir]

A common measure of the wealth of a nation is how few of the country's population are engaged in primary industry such as agriculture and mining. The bottom line is the only credible plans for reducing greenhouse gases involve at least limiting, if not stopping or reversing, growth and those plans inevitably condemn millions to inescapable poverty.

From that point of view climate change denial actually makes a little bit of sense: a 99% chance of billions condemned to poverty or starvation with the status quo or a 100% chance of billions condemned to poverty and starvation with carbon reduction plans.

Possibly the best shot is to invest 100% of our science budget in fusion and keep our fingers crossed that it's possible. What are the odds of that?

[Little John]

A common measure of the wealth of a nation is how few of the country's population are engaged in primary industry such as agriculture and mining. The bottom line is the only credible plans for reducing greenhouse gases involve at least limiting, if not stopping or reversing, growth and those plans inevitably condemn millions to inescapable poverty.

From that point of view climate change denial actually makes a little bit of sense: a 99% chance of billions condemned to poverty or starvation with the status quo or a 100% chance of billions condemned to poverty and starvation with carbon reduction plans.

Possibly the best shot is to invest 100% of our science budget in fusion and keep our fingers crossed that it's possible. What are the odds of that?

Yep, the "Prisoner’s Dillema", otherwise known as a the choice between a Rock and a Hard Place is a game that underlies the majority of humanity's woes.

[biffvernon]

A common measure of the wealth of a nation is how few of the country's population are engaged in primary industry such as agriculture and mining.

Which just goes to show what a silly measure it is. A better measure might be life expectancy.

Fusion power, as we all know, is always 40 years off, irrespective of investment, so let's get on with improving health and well-being whilst reducing our energy needs. There's little point in pointing out the difficulties when the alternatives are worse.

[Little John]

A common measure of the wealth of a nation is how few of the country's population are engaged in primary industry such as agriculture and mining.

Which just goes to show what a silly measure it is. A better measure might be life expectancy.

Fusion power, as we all know, is always 40 years off, irrespective of investment, so let's get on with improving health and well-being whilst reducing our energy needs. There's little point in pointing out the difficulties when the alternatives are worse.

The alternatives are only worse if you choose to care (or can afford to care) about people who are not yet born, the vast majority of whom will not be your descendants. Most people don't (or can't afford to) care about such things. Nature is selfish and evolutionary behavioural strategies do not evolve on the basis of foresight.

[biffvernon]

I don't actually believe that most people don't care about unborn generations. I do, and I can't think of a single person I know who doesn't. Maybe they don't act out that caring in a rational way when it comes to immediate decision making, but that's another story.

[clv101]

I don't actually believe that most people don't care about unborn generations. I do, and I can't think of a single person I know who doesn't. Maybe they don't act out that caring in a rational way when it comes to immediate decision making, but that's another story.

Another story maybe, but it's the important one. There's not much point in 'caring for unborn generations' if one isn't willing to take significant actions today for their benefit.

[kenneal - lagger]

Most don't care enough to take the significant drop in material consumption that is required to prevent warming and complete resource depletion.

[Little John]

I don't actually believe that most people don't care about unborn generations. I do, and I can't think of a single person I know who doesn't. Maybe they don't act out that caring in a rational way when it comes to immediate decision making, but that's another story.

The majority of human decision making is immediate. What little is left lies on a dimension of low personally negative consequences through to high personally negative consequences. Whatever social circle you may claim to inhabit is anecdotally irrelevant since that circle is demonstrably not reflective of the human population at large. I suspect, also, it is not even reflective of itself. That is to say, even nice, right-on green liberals, when push comes to economic shove, are no different to anyone else. They just like to think they are because it complies with how they like to see themselves. Until, that is, it starts to have a significant negative impact on them economically.

[biffvernon]

Another story maybe, but it's the important one. There's not much point in 'caring for unborn generations' if one isn't willing to take significant actions today for their benefit.

Yes, but, and here's the case for their defence; it seems that there is a gap between personal action and the communal action that is required for planet-saving. Take a friend of mine who I was talking to just yesterday, one of Steve's 'nice, right-on green liberals'. Just off to visit her son in Australia. She "just can't bear to not go and visit him" He's the next generation and soon to produce the next but one as yet un-born generation. And it won't make any difference because "If I don't burn the oil someone else will - I can't make any difference". She has a point.

[UndercoverElephant]

Another story maybe, but it's the important one. There's not much point in 'caring for unborn generations' if one isn't willing to take significant actions today for their benefit.

Yes, but, and here's the case for their defence; it seems that there is a gap between personal action and the communal action that is required for planet-saving. Take a friend of mine who I was talking to just yesterday, one of Steve's 'nice, right-on green liberals'. Just off to visit her son in Australia. She "just can't bear to not go and visit him" He's the next generation and soon to produce the next but one as yet un-born generation. And it won't make any difference because "If I don't burn the oil someone else will - I can't make any difference". She has a point.

Of course she has a point. It is the ultimate "tragedy of the commons".

Human beings are going to push the global ecosystem, and in many cases their own local ecosystems, right up until the point where it is struggling to sustain human life, and even then they might not stop pushing. We will stop burning fossil fuels when, and only when, it becomes uneconomic to do so. We will stop taking fish from the sea when, and only when, it becomes uneconomic to do so. There is absolutely no prospect of any other outcome.

[emordnilap]

We will stop burning fossil fuels when, and only when, it becomes uneconomic to do so. We will stop taking fish from the sea when, and only when, it becomes uneconomic to do so. There is absolutely no prospect of any other outcome.

Ahh, yes. Sigh. "If I don't burn it, someone else will". "If I don't eat it, someone else will". Grrr, what a passive, selfish and defeatist attitude.

As I've said before, all you can do is set the best example you can. 'taint much but that shouldn't stop ya.

An American I was in conversation with said something about whether she could take an item on a plane and I replied I wouldn't know as 'I don't use planes'. This made her sit up straight and led to another interesting conversation...about tv, politics, meat eating, pet keeping, fossil fuels, all sorts. As I say, it's not much but it's all you can do and gave her food for thought when she was burning that jet fuel.