Fundamental problems with this article:

1. Shale gas MIGHT be exploitable at a price that is on average comparable or cheaper than current LNG or oil extraction and refinement. Or maybe it is just wishful thinking.

2. The quantities of shale gas MIGHT be so huge as to make a significant difference to our fossil fuelled energy future, for a while… perhaps a couple of decades?, but certainly not for a particularly long time. Or shale gas might be essentially insigificant at a global scale?

3. The continued exploitation of cheap fossil fuel energy fuels the ever-rapidly-expanding demand for energy, and undermines sustainability!

This last point is the one that people like Matt Ridley just don’t even think of, apparently. It just doesn’t even rate a mention and yet it is so vitally important. We see this all the time in articles on OLO!

We have surely got to be putting all our efforts into stabilising the demand and finding energy sources that can meet this demand in an ongoing manner, and NOT into forever battling to provide unsustainable energy sources to an unfettered ever-increasing demand base!

Technological advances that are going to prolong the fossil fuel era really are ANTITECHNOLOGICAL!!

This sort of technology will just lead to a considerably larger population and higher average per-capita consumption rate, that will be a whole lot harder to deal with when all fossil fuel sources finally do become too expensive to be economical.

This sort of technology will reduce the imperative to develop renewable energy technologies and achieve sustainable societies where the supply capability is well able to meet the demand in an ongoing manner, with a big safety margin.

It is the WRONG way to go, Mr Ridley!

Great news Mark, thanks.

Most of us don't believe the world will just suddenly stop using fossil fuels or some sort of substitute, like bio-fuels anyway.

The flip side of this is that there are some people who want the world to run out of fuels, who want there not to be substitute fuels, that we don't use bio-fuels.

They want a return to what they think is a simpler and kinder lifestyle.

Fortunately they are in such a minority it doesn't matter.

the rest of us will cheer and continue to enjoy and plan for the future of ever better lifestyles and of course, quality of life.

Many are not swayed by the doom talk of ever increasing populations and reducing of resources. As you show, we are a very long way from such problems and in reality people are not driven on a daily basis while trying to pay mortgages and feed their families to think about the possibility of shortages,or even care abut it.

The waste in Australia by our politicians and self obsessed lobby organizations is incredible, fortunately we are wealthy enough to afford the support to various pet obsessions of our leaders.

At the rate of such waste, why would anyone think there is a problem, why mere billions spent on school halls is promoted as a good thing. Recent times, even a GFC has shown we resort to waste immediately there is a crises, retail therapy is another name for it.

So if a fuel crises ever did manifest, we know very well our fine governments would immediately throw obscene amounts of money at it to solve it, at the moment of crises, not before .. so there is never a need to worry now about what we can afford to waste in the future.

Anyone who thinks we will ever get our act together to address anything that might be electorally unpopular, before it is an emergency, is dreaming. (which is why the reluctance to a carbon tax, we are not affected now, so why bother?)

"Shale gas was thought to be as inaccessible as clathrates, and when it began to be exploited in the 1990s it looked as if it would still come in at the top of the price range. Now technological improvements have brought the price down so far that it undercuts conventional gas."

You should support this statement with some evidence. From what I have read shale gas requires a great deal more drilling than conventional natural gas since the wells deplete rapidly. This means that the net energy payoff is reduced and also inhibits upscaling to provide substitute for other declining fossil fuels. Then there is the problem of getting the gas to where the user is. The current low price for shale gas may have more to do with the appearance of abundance (from company spin believed by markets) rather than reality. It will be interesting to see how much longer the shale gas companies can continue with the low prices if they are actually subsidising production from debt. See the following article for something more than Matt Ridley's insubstantial and unsupported discussion of the topic:

http://www.theoildrum.com/node/7075

Very well put Ludwig. One might also consider for more than a brief moment, what effect all the increased exajoules of energy being added to the biosphere are contributing to global warming. It surely must have some significance in the mid to long term.

David

At last a dose or reality and common sense.

Unless the Chicken Littles manage to strangle it, a free market and innovation always comes up with answers.

Spot on, Mark. Over the run of decades commodity prices always trend down and energy prices will do so in face of 'peak oil' or whatever. Likewise the prices of food.

Slight problem

>>The composition of hydraulic fracturing fluids has become a key point of tension between the oil and gas industry, which has been reluctant to disclose the specific contents of drilling fluids, and those who say such disclosure is necessary to determine whether hydraulic fracturing poses a threat to drinking water.>>

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704487904576267690277252796.html

>>Inflammable tap water, cancer threats and earthquakes: probably coming soon, near you. Sebastian Doggart reports from New York on the dangers of hydraulic fracturing, or 'fracking'.>>

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/offshorefinance/8488166/Frack-and-ruin-the-rise-of-hydraulic-fracturing.html

Neither the Wall Street Journal nor the Daily Telegraph are the natural habitat of "sandal wearing muesli chewing bike riders" to paraphrase Paul Keating.

Well said Ludwig.
Your message will now be drowned out by a chorus from the “astro turfers”.
Not to worry change is inevitable and they will be protesting that there is nothing to worry abour, as they jump on their bikes and rub two boy scouts together to make a fire.

Looks like the profligate "Head in the sand " brigade are all out in force this morning.
"Take therefore no thought for the morrow: for the morrow shall take thought for the things of itself. Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof" seems to be the current mantra.
I'm not sure what they are going to do when God ceases to provide.

David

Matt Ridley ignores that the transport sector is increasingly dependent on crude oil and is the fastest growing source of carbon pollution. There are 16 million registered vehicles in Australian ; increasing car ownership owes its growth to energy derived from oil and is almost entirely dependent on it. There is no tax silver bullet to reduce our addiction to imported crude oil . The failure to predict future oil prices over the last five years by the world’s major energy and transport agencies is ignored.

Nearly all the big oil, energy and transport consultants ignored the geophysical realities underlying the growth in the price of oil in the last three years. Whether or not this would prevent the wheels falling off the world economy is still in doubt. Until 2005, in the developed countries, asset values, national GDPs and world oil production had been assumed to keep on growing steadily for the next 30 years without any risk of a major economic depression. Australian forecasts of the growth of oil demand were merely copycat projections of the International Energy Agency (IEA).Australia may have half the proportion of toxic debt as the U.S. but it is just as vulnerable to future oil shortages.

The price of crude increased to US$147 in July 2008, more than five times the price of crude oil in 2003.Commonwealth and state governments have failed to recognise the possible need to ration oil for essential purposes within the next decade. Such as increased the demand for rail passenger transport in Melbourne and Sydney.

The train and bus network need to be extended into outer suburbia and investing in ecologically sustainable transport infrastructure that increases walking, cycling, high occupancy public transport, Adopting new EU regulations for electric bicycles , investment in high speed inter capital city trains and last but no least car sharing . The only rational way to adapt to the inevitable decline in world oil production is to risk manage the threats of oil depletion, toxic debts and climate change together, with a new tax system ? Which party is proposing that?

yes sarnian, "change is inevitable" and we will change from one fuel type to another .. so what's the problem?

Or would you prefer the change from fuel to no fuel .. is that the issue for you?

To cease the over-consumption you and the "sandal wearing muesli chewing bike riders" are obsessed with?

Finally someone who actually knows something about the energy industry, at least to the point where they know that its been revolutionised in the past few years. Gas reserves have gone through the roof. I note that a few posters have tried to claim that really this new promise is just a mirage.. But the fact that the energy industry is in revolution is so well known, its up to them to prove that there is a problem.

As for claims that the extra energy will add to greenhouse, its important to first acknowledge that the revolution has occured and work from that..

Well, I for one did not know that coffee was considered as carcinogenic as benzene, but there you go.

If gas is really the non-toxic future of fuels, then I am hopeful.

Electrical generation using gas is easily scalable, in that it can be used in generators that can run a building quite easily. It is a fuel that can also easily ramp up for peak loads and can be teamed up with renewable energy generation.

That is of course, if it doesn't contaminate the ground water in our food growing regions. I hear there are quite a few concerns about that.

From the Minister for resources & energy:
http://minister.ret.gov.au/mediacentre/mediareleases/pages/offshorepetroleumexplorationpermitsawarded.aspx
"Australia has a $16 billion trade deficit in crude oil, refined products and LPG which is expected to rise, possibly as high as $30 billion by 2015.”
It will be interesting to see how the government copes with this scenario. This situation will only alter for the worse as the demand raises oil prices. Will it continue to take its orders from the Energy lobby or actually take steps as in PESTs post?
As for which party will do this, I hold little hope that either of the main parties will have the wit or will to act.
Unfortunately the alternative parties are not really up for this either. Maybe it will take a totally new party that is willing and able to face up to the challenge. One that is not financed by the greenhouse mafia but is able to think and act for itself.

sarnian - a $16B deficit, meh, we waste more than that building school halls no one needs, in one year and can get back into surplus a year or two later, on top of hosing away a similar amount for insulating houses the owners didn't consider worth insulating. Then add a NBN that hardly anyone believes can be done for less that $43B.

I don't think you realise how trivial that figure is in the scheme of things, do you know the GDP of Australia and that piddly figure is the only problem we might have ..

mousenuts, sky is falling alarmism yet again ..

Gas reserves haven't gone through the roof - they have remained unchanged since they were laid down millions of years ago. We are just discovering more of them. Whatever fossil fuels we are talking about, they are finite, and the cheaper they are the faster they will be exhausted. No matter whether it has another fifty years or five hundred, the fossil fuel age of homo sapiens will be the tiniest blip on earths time line. The stone, iron and bronze ages are, arguably, still continuing while we burn off our carbon stores over a few centuries. Common sense dictates that we look for alternatives.

Candide - true, they are just the same as they were when first laid down, and there is always good reason not to be wasteful but it is always a good idea to base policy on reality rather than on mistaken ideas of fast approaching limits.

We all want a new clean energy source. However the emissions of shale gas are worse than coal over a 20 year period. Dr Richard Howarth of Cornell University released a report in January - which has been peer reviewed and accepted - giving a properly researched assessment of this industry. Couple that with water contamination, health effects and the hydraulic fraccing process and this is a very dirty energy indeed. Why not promote the use of the solar energy? Beyond Zero Emissions, a group of Melbourne University Engineers have it costed and ready to go. Far more efficient and far less controversial.

Well gosh, how the optimists keep on purring......The head of the International Energy Agency, Dr Birol, just last week advised that 'Peak Oil' occurred in 2006, natural gas is not going to be the saviour, yes there are a lot of new fields being found, however they do decline rapidly and it would take 10 plus years to change our national transportation and power generation over to a gas energy infrastructure. Gas fields historically decline much faster than oil and independent analysis be the EIA and IEA have confirmed natural gas will peak within 10 years of oil peaking (that puts it around 2016)

Oil (energy) is what drives an economy, look at any of the recessions or depressions in the last 50 years and you will see a direct correlation between increasing oil/per barrel prices and recession/depression. We are heading for another much bigger and deeper recession and correlating depression in the the US and Europe. This time the existing debt held by nations will be the killer crunch no one is talking about. Don't be fooled by those who think technology will save us....it's not all roses, oil drives our lifestyles and you will need to get used to a much more local, simple lifestyle. Don't believe me, look at what's happening to the US and European middle classes, you have been warned!

Natural Gas will be no more than a transition fuel.
The quantities that are available are being looked at through glasses
coloured by the level of present demand. Crank it up to replace oil
and the supply will be drained rather quickly.

AS oil prices rise it will force various industries using oil based
fuels to switch to CNG. This will allow those of us using small amounts
of petrol and diesel to continue.
The cost of outfitting the US service stations and supplying them has
been calculated and has found that there is not enough finance
available to do the job.

With world coal due to peak around 2025 or a bit earlier LNG for
electricity generation may preclude its use for widespread vehicle use.

I suspect that CNG will only be used by freight transport where
absolutely necessary. Perhaps CNG depots will be setup halfway between
major cities to supply trucks.
However in those circumstances long distance road transport is likely
to be banned.
In any case if what Matt suggests is to come about then export LNG
to China, Japan and the US will have to be banned.

Certainly films like Gasland raise very serious questions but may well
be surmountable.

The report refered to in the article can be found here:
http://www.thegwpf.org/images/stories/gwpf-reports/Shale-Gas_4_May_11.pdf

You really should read it all before the knee-jerk decision that Mr Ridley doesn't have a clue.

If you work through many of the concerns raised in other posts are addressed eg:
* Gas isn't a substitute for oil? Well yes it is or it can be without to much effort and with current technology.
*Infastructure would need to be built to get it to market? Well yes and no, but its not the problem the unititiated would believe.
* Polluted ground water? No evidence and not really possible.
* Burning faucets? Nup, green hype.

OK, so the idea that this can be a saviour for industrial society for the next 50-100 yrs(or until the greens learn to love nuclear!!) may be exaggerated. But no one knows.

So let's try it and see. There is no harm trying, the environmental effects are minimal and think of all the fun we can have if it turns out to be dud and all those evil capitalists do their dough.

And if its not a dud then we can whine about what a pack of rich bastards those evil capitalists are and they should be paying more tax to those who missed the boat.

Geoff of Perth

If the IEA wants to rant about peak oil then it is welcome to waste its time that way as any other. All it proves is that the IEA has flipped. Any date picked for peak oil would be highly contentious, and probably wrong, no matter who is making the statement.. in any case, all it really refers to is the peak for easy lift oil.

The original peak oil forecasts were never meant to cover alternates, or the deep sea reservoirs, or be used to forecast the end of oil as such. As for trying to put any peak on coal or gas, in the light of recent developments, forget it..

On Line Opinion has been a trail blazer on a number of issues over the years. We were the first mainstream site to open the debate on global warming and not treat skeptics as lunatics. We subsequently started publishing articles on China and India as the future of the world long before the other media were interested.

We've been vindicated on all three.

Peak oil is another theme that we have run with. It's been obvious for quite a long time that oil was going to be in short supply at some time around now. Well obvious to us, at least. The IEA and the MSM have only just come on board.

But peak oil isn't the same thing as peak fossil fuel. Matt Ridley's article is one that I sought out and which is one that is amongst the most important we have ever published.

Until recently I thought that lack of exploitable hydrocarbons would preempt the climate change arguments. What I'm seeing now suggests that I was wrong. But that doesn't mean I am right. I'm hoping that this thread will start to throw up serious evidence on the effects that shale and coal seam gas will have.

I'm interested in hard evidence about what this new source of energy will do, and how significant it really is.

Candide

>> " Proved reserves are estimated quantities that analysis of geologic and engineering data demonstrates with reasonable certainty are recoverable under existing economic and operating conditions." << http://www.eia.doe.gov/international/reserves.html

Gas reserves are most definitely increasing.

No they're not, PaulL - what I said holds. What you mean, I think, is that more existing gas reserves are being identified. They aren't breeding underground like rabbits.

NO candide what you're confused about is the difference between a resource and a reserve.

As I've already pointed out, the definition of a reserve requires that a resource be

a) discovered/located
b) economically recoverable using existing techniques.

Reserves do NOT include a resource that has been located but is not economically viable to extract, NOR do they include a resource that has not yet been located.

Gas reserves are most definitely increasing with exploration and new extraction techniques. You don't need multiplying rabbits to understand this, just an understanding of the terms you are using.

For what it's worth, I agree Graham.

>>Matt Ridley's article is one that I sought out and which is one that is amongst the most important we have ever published.<<

It will be interesting to see whether your readers step up to the plate and move beyond the "'tis/'tain't" level of debate on it.

As a classic layman on this issue I am keen to move beyond the hype and sniping, and have a chance to assess some simply-presented facts. I'm pretty sure I'm not alone in this.

I find Matt Ridley's optimism and liberal-rationalist perspective disturbing. It's not only that he tacitly condones our addiction to fossil fuels, or that he sees it as ecologically sustainable with a shift to shale gas extraction--like going from from cocaine to crack--but that he even celebrates the spurious fact that "cheap fuel means higher standards of living", and thus reveals his full neo-liberal-rationalist credentials: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matt_Ridley Scroll down to "Debate over Ridley's political philosophy.
I'd be all in favour of higher standards of living for the world's poor, if it was environmentally supportable--or if the modern conception of a quality "lifestyle" was even an expression of genuine quality of life--but the scientific community is hoarse with telling us that western lifestyles are unsustainable already. Western lifestyles should be growing more modest so that the rest can attain a semblance of dignity--such could even be the start of both a vibrant and a sustainable global economy if education, birth-control and "modest lifestyles" were appreciated and embraced.
But this is not Matt Ridley's agenda, but an arrogant and fool-hardy liberal-rationalist approach that doesn't stop to assess the quality of "progress"; it's a law unto itself that is its own ethic and rationale and is sublimely indifferent to the planetary side effects of the human juggernaut. We'll just fix it all and make a killing as we go--hi ho the merrio!
I have Ridley's "The Rational Optimist"--suitably celebrated by Ian McEwan--a breath-taking progression through the author's looking-glass world, and just as far removed from real-life concerns as Lewis Carrol's fantasy.
And despite Ridley's childlike optimism, shale gas extraction represents an escalation of greenhouse gas emissions, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shale_gas both via extraction and combustion.
We need optimism for its own sake, or to make a buck, but driving deliberative, sustainable and ethical solutions.

Correction; my last line above should begin "We don't need optimism for its own sake..."

there are cheaper alternatives
stop thinking 'big'

we hear that things arnt energy efficient
we need high voltage..to go accross distance
but often the stuff we run..could run on 12 volt

industry on 24 volt...but unlimited amps
there is so much our experts dont know

but i feel the point is being missed
we cool water into the air..
[ie add in warm air/..at its most simplistic level]

instead we should run say a flow of steam...
[ignoring for now how it was heated]..
and run its motion[heat energies]..like a river
with paddle like wheels...generating 12 volt

figuring out [precisly what energy inputs
re heat it along its...long winding course]

i often wonder why we dont return to water power/gravity
ie water sluces..and coffer dams...water wheels
the proven HYDRO-power..[till bigbusiness stole the concept]

sure were the dry cuntry...but mate
canals are great[were the most flat earth continent there is
if we cant fully manage our water power,,we all doomed

water
works

at non peak energy
we store its weight[mass]
times the clear thinking that sees magnets
driving magnets[within a coil]..is what makes power

magnets can drive the 'other magnet..'
se magnetic moters link

then there is the joe fuel cell
which makes a gass[that IMPLODED..ie dosnt explode]
it generates suction..to suck water up hill
more efgicient that blowing it up hill

thing is the joe fuel cell costs 100 bucks
of stainless steel cylenders..that generate this gas
orgon gas...HH gas...

who knows...but it also can burn
and neutralise radio-activity..!
search for joe fuel cell

but so much more
never put all your eggs in the one basket
dont just have glass windows on ya roof..
when insurance says...its not coverd for hail damm-age

One of the great problems faced by thoughtful articles like this one from Matt Ridley, is that is fits into a familiar pattern of responding to symptoms rather than causes.

It does challenge some of our thinking about sources of energy but it does so mainly from a position of responding to a wide range of often negative perceptions or predispositions.

Those perceptions have been presented for public consumption with a wide variety of spin that supports one or more motives or interests. IMHO we as a species need to look more to the total picture of all energy options and the causes of the perceptions about various energy options. I say this because we always seem to rule “in” or “out” our options based upon perceptions.

From a marketing, engineering and economic position, the potential technological solutions and mixes would not be valid until and unless their “do-ability” was confirmed.

What we have currently is a debate, based upon perception, that certain technologies are in or out before this process is even started. The effect has been to choke off options based upon ideology, vested interests and flawed economics and not because of pure technological validity.

We humans are heavy users, even abusers of energy and its potential environmental sustainability. We are also creative, innovative and tactile as we have shown throughout our brief existence.

We have past energy sources, current energy sources and potential future energy sources. We must look also to transitional energy sources because we do not yet have confirmed “do-able” future energy sources, only options based upon what we have now.

Every technology we have ever experienced has changed, developed or matured. The same applies to energy technology.

It seems impossible to deny that the origins of the lap top computer and also every piece of computer based technology we now use has its origins in the 1950’s English Electric LEO. A valve based computer that would have filled the Sydney Opera House. So why is it acceptable to view any energy source as a single point in its “product maturity” timeline?

TBC

Cont’d

Would we have said to the Wright Brothers, get lost mate, the Kitty Hawk could be developed as a weapon or flown into the Twin Towers in NY?

Of course not, because we could never have imagined the coincidence of technologies behind the Twin Towers and Jet Liners as future concepts.

Yet we still persist with “objections” to a wide range of technological options without understanding their “maturity” potential.

Why cannot we accept that it is utterly farcical to accept the assertions of vested commercial interests that promote “their” technological winner? Or that politics promotes a tokenistic renewables policy that can only be viable through public funding and heavy tariffs? Or that public alarmism is used to create fear, uncertainty and doubt that chokes the life out of a particular option?

It matters not if “peak oil” is a threat or a potential driver of innovation. What we actually perceive is a single point on a time line of product evolution, and we debate it as such because we have to defend against the “objectors”.

We are fast approaching “analysis paralysis”, which is the cognitive equivalent of peak oil. Every single energy option has objectors on some grounds, at the moment it is the conservation movements’ in ascendency, closely followed by political opportunism and last but not least, commercial interests.

Do we really believe that these are quality inputs to a process that is so absolutely critical to humans?

Let’s put it another way, consider every energy technology against what is known as the product maturity “bell curve” (the outline of a bell). The front part of the curve is the development cycle, the top is maturity and the descending curve beyond the peak is twilight.

By way of comparison, computer technology is where? Mature? Surprisingly, No.

Computer technology will be mature when it is “transparent”, possibly by 2030-2040. This is how far each available energy option has yet to go. So for those amongst us who “object” to any particular option on any particular grounds, understand just how much of an impediment to human progress you are.

funny how the headline
[hides the spin]

""Booming demand and stagnant supply
drove oil prices to $125 a barrel last week.""

bomming demand...[in a resession?]
this wasnt booming demand..FOR ANYONE
EXCEPT..the traders trading in oil futures*

yes al that easy govt bailout money
has to go somewhere...so it goes into a bubble[oil bubble]

and lukey for them
the bubble burst earlier rather than later

recall the oil problems of the 80's
that was only a 1 percent shortage
but s[peculaters speculate
especially when they see the paper/market going south

""Is this a sign that fossil fuels are running out?""'

no we are nowhere near peak oil
and peak coal...lol
all them thin seams leech-out our methane
[while [poluting the groundwater]...
and adding greenhouse gas to the sky

yea investing in that
would be nutts

so govt does it
capitalists only keep the gain
the govt bail'sout its losers

the two party public servant run boys club
two pary parties..partying it on..system

""It is more likely a sign
that the cheap-oil age is giving way to the cheap-gas age.""

the methane leaks are huge
the ground water polution is tranmsgenerational
will be mutaing generations ..via the frakking fluid

""As the oil price heads north,
the gas price is drifting south.""

well they are both going south now
while the carbon green tax lurks,...goes up

free solar cells
paid for by your neighbour
leech off the public system at night
and get double..for the stuff you put in...via our cells

make hay while the sun shines

im smelling gas
you said i should take a shower?[poor joke]

but seriously..lets look at nitouse dioxide
from farming/mining...and gas 'making'[frakking]

[frakking isnt spelled correctly]

The Author touts tight gas as a panacea; does not seem to think carbon pollution / global warming is an issue. We should remember these relativities, in erm of C pollution of electricity generation from coal is 0.9- 1.4 while natural gas is 0.6. It's still a carbon polluter.

Where gas is used in TRI - GENERATION (combined heat and power), which is twice as efficent as gas turbines alone, it can be a useful part of the solution. Already is in parts of London (google Woking) and soon will be in Sydney. Can bring the C pollution down to about 0.3, close to some renewables. But certainly not a panacea; only applicable to dense commercial or residential or industrial situations where the 'waste' heat can be used for heating and airconditioning.

spindoc (or Matt if you can spare a minute from your schedule)

May I ask what we are "progressing" to, what's the goal?

I'm not against making the human world as comfortable as possible, I even believe in that, in "progress", but I won't reveal what I mean by progress until you do.
If I understand you correctly, you're an evangelistic version of Ridley (actually, he's an evangelist too); you think we should leave technology alone and see what happens... put our faith in it? Ignore all the negativity and silly "objections" and just push on?
Again.. Towards what?

"analysis paralysis"; nice phrase--wish I'd thought of it!
What does it mean? Let's all just stop thinking? pull our socks up, put our shoulders to the wheel, trust in the future and be rational optimists?.. yea yea yea!
But what's the objective I'm not supposed to object to?

I take the completely opposite tack to you and Matt. I think we should know what we're striving for, identify the goal, identify the obstacles, and formulate a workable strategy..
You prefer to go in blind.. That's very brave I'm sure but sorry, a weakness of mine is I like to have a plan.

As far as I can see, you and Matt are just exhilarated by man's ingenuity--technology junkies? I can relate to that.. But it keeps coming back, "to what end?", and at "what price?" And what exactly does it cost you, and Matt, compared to what it costs the human detritus that's the by-product? or the other species being driven to extinction?
Do you think Matt would be so "optimistic" if he worked in a mine in China or scratched out a living on the tip in Mexico? (think of that guy hanging upside-down in irons in "The Life of Brian": "I just love the Romans!")

But don't worry about knockers like me--analysis has no effect whatsoever.
It's delusion to think we're in control, or have "any" control. Human "lifestyles" and "progress" have long been the product of economic determinism.
Saves us the bother of worrying about it..

Hi Squeers,

Beats me why you picked on the last of three words in the last para. of my second post? What is it about human progress that offends you so much? Are we not entitled to develop in every human domain, to improve the lot of all, to achieve equality and justice for everyone, to be the best we can be at everything we can imagine, create and develop?

Is human progress going to upset your definition of what is or is not sustainable? Curious.

You then introduce the word “goals” in relation to “formulate a workable strategy”.(for humanity?) This possibly explains where you are coming from. What you want to do is have a plan for humanity. No doubt we will all be grateful for your “plan” for us.

Not even on the horizon I’m pleased to say but I’m sure humanity will appreciate your concern and when we need one I’m sure we will give you a call.

The theme of my post was actually about getting out of the way whilst human ingenuity is trying to come to terms with developing solutions. They might not be your choice of solution, and they may not yet be viable however, this is no reason to object to such technologies being developed as solutions before you tell us that we are not in control, or have any control, or that we should abandon all hope because in your view, our lifestyles and progress have long been a product of economic determinism. What?

Bravo, you have now defined all the reasons why you are entitled to “object”. This is precisely my point. You can object, so you do, and as we have seen, you don’t even need to justify this. If you had your say when Henry Ford was around he would not have developed the Model T.

That in my book makes you a condom on progress, a very vocal, self oriented and self confessed “knocker”.

For those who say it is not possible, we say get out of the way.

Nicely done, Squeers! But, I think you've been way too easy on the energy junkies. How easy they find it to divorce their proposition from the emerging global context. An holistic view? Don't think so.

It may be great if there can be another fossil fuel source, but only if it can be utilised safely and more efficiently to reduce demand on coal and oil, and even then, only if it can be utilised within the context of a sustainable world environment. How easily some forget the environment, and the current atmospheric debate, in the name of a headlong rush to maintain the GDP/development push, irrespective of the ultimate costs. Once again the focus is on advancing First World supremacy and consumerism.

All the hurrah's will be of little significance when we wake up to accelerated species extinction and irreversible environmental destruction. Can't happen? It is happening now, and accelerating. What is going to change that? Not another fuel source, but an honest and objective overall review of energy consumption and of the increasingly heavy footprint of consumerism on this fragile planet.

This so-called "find" can unfortunately only delay requisite attention and action to address the very real issue of limiting the exploitation of this planet's most essential resources to within absolutely sustainable levels.

Third World deprivation and conflict? All too busy patting one another on the back to give a care. Green energy? What me worry?

Time to rethink what's really important.

Saltpetre,
I'm glad we're in tune.

Spindoc:
"Are we not entitled to develop in every human domain, to improve the lot of all, to achieve equality and justice for everyone, to be the best we can be at everything we can imagine, create and develop?"

Yes please, go right ahead! ..when does it start?

Anyway, I'm only sideshow entertainment here. Much better off going to the main pavilions, and can we have some rigour please along the lines Graham suggests? I'm ready to be converted; I'm a sucker for solid argument and evidence..

Squeers, a bedtime story.

Within the next galactic “blink” our sun will consume all its planets.

In the meantime our planet is exposed to various possible destinies. Mother Nature may throw a big rock at us which could reduce us to a patch of deep frozen solar gravel.

Our fertile planet has produced some 4.2 million biological variants, one of which is us. We too have the capacity to destroy our species and many others. That is also one of our possible destinies.

We have awareness and rudimentary intellect, enough it seems to recognize that we do have a destiny.

Our species came with an ever expanding range of physical and cognitive skills that we can use to develop solutions to progress to that destiny if uninterrupted.

Matt Ridley is simply trying to open this debate to options and to interrogate one such option. That is until Squeers and Co try to strangle the debate and choke off any technological solutions they don’t like.

What is it about progressive pseudo-intellectuals and nihilists that drive them to impose their prohibitions on possible solutions that humanity might need to fully explore?

Is it their Godlike omnipotence that causes them to raise threats formed from within their own fear, uncertainty and doubt, then impose their prejudices on others by insisting that we take heed of their “objections” or else?

It has now reached the stage where progressives have collectively put most human options on someone’s prohibition list, the “knockers list”.

Do the inhabitants of planet Squeers have any intention to “positively” contribute anything? Or is it just a matter of mindlessly working your way through the Knockers List?

spindoc,
that is arrant nonsense, and offensive in as much as you impute any of it to me.
We're all aware of the contingent nature of life on planet Earth, so how you infer a human "destiny" from your geological and evolutionary musings is beyond me. But I'll take that as meaning that humans are driven to transcend the cruelties and delimitations imposed upon them by un-tamed nature. In that event, we're in agreement; I'm only arguing that we undertake the project in a considered, inclusive, sustainable and humane way, while preferably maximising opportunities "now" to live in a dignified and equitable manner that's "worthy" of preservation. We are surely at the point in our evolution where we can take charge of our own human destiny by securing the present and protecting our future prospects (at least from our own folly) first, and then embarking upon whatever we conceive to be our "destiny". What Ridley is proposing is "more" reckless abandon, lop-sided expansion by whatever means and for its own sake, following the juvenile logic that there's money to be made, that more is always better and that it'll all come good in the end. Sheer economic determinism--subservience to the uncompromising growth-demands of the market. We don't need Ridley's "optimism", the will of the market shall be done!

"Matt Ridley is simply trying to open this debate to options and to interrogate one such option. That is until Squeers and Co try to strangle the debate and choke off any technological solutions they don’t like".
What utter crap!
I'm not trying to "strangle debate", I'm a dissenting voice. Please feel free to ignore me. If you have anything compelling to say in favour of Ridley's "great expectations" for the world, I'm eager to be converted as I've said. But as in the novel, his great expectations are a delusion, though his delusion is far more destructive and selfish than Pip's was!

spin/doc...""We have awareness and rudimentary intellect,..enough
it seems to recognize...that we do have a destiny.""

fine words

""Our species came with an ever expanding
range of physical and cognitive skills..that we can use
to develop solutions..to progress..to that destiny

*if uninterrupted.""
]
the question begs reply
interupted by whome?



""Matt Ridley is simply trying to open this debate
to options and to interrogate...one such option.""

""That is until Squeers and Co
try to strangle the debate and choke off
any technological solutions they don’t like.""

let squeers reply

""spindoc,
that is arrant nonsense,
and offensive in as much..as you impute any of it..to me.

..""how you infer a human "destiny"
from your geological and evolutionary musings is beyond me.""

[i lked it]
didnt agree
but liked it

""But I'll take that as meaning
that humans are driven to transcend
the cruelties and delimitations imposed upon them by un-tamed nature. """

i would say rather pathetic natures
[nothing to dowith mother's 'nurture/nature'

"I'm only arguing that we undertake the project in a considered, inclusive, sustainable and humane way, while preferably maximising opportunities "now" to live in a dignified and equitable manner that's "worthy" of preservation.""'

im with him

""We are surely at the point in our evolution
where we can take charge of our own human destiny
by securing the present and protecting our future prospects (at least from our own folly) first,""

i agree

""and then embarking upon whatever
*we conceive to be our "destiny". ""

to conciously sustainably/faily is to be

""What Ridley is proposing is "more" reckless abandon, lop-sided expansion by whatever means and for its own sake, following the juvenile logic that there's money to be made, that more is always better and that it'll all come good in the end.""

more of the same?

thats insane!

""Sheer economic determinism--subservience to the uncompromising growth-demands of the market...""

been there
done that

HI spindoc,
I do like that - “Within the next galactic “blink” our sun will consume all its planets”.
AND
“In the meantime our planet is exposed to various possible destinies. Mother Nature may throw a big rock at us which could reduce us to a patch of deep frozen solar gravel.”

Physicists; astromoners are finding these issues interesting .

Firstly the Issue of black holes and dark matter is now attracting a great deal of scientific interest of how this weird “matter” imight enter the solar system in the distant future and do what is shown in some science fiction .

Secondly, Physicists and astromoners and astronouts in space, have been scanning the solar sytem for objects in the asteroid belt between Mars and Jupiter and found 32,000 asteroids many of which if knocked from there current orbits in collisions with other asteroids and the gravitation fields of Jupiter, Saturn and their moons some of which are a big as the earths moon.

Apart from that there are 100,000s more asteroids much further out at the edge of the solar system in irregular orbits that may cannon into one another, change orbit and in time impact the earth. The Astromoners also detected 20 new comets. NASA websites discuss these possibilities.

Several time in the earths history the course of animal evolution changed due large asteroids hitting the earth. Due to the foresight of the Russian scientiist /general in charge of Russian space program, the US miltary became interested, NASA got funding and has been doing the research into earth impacts. A most interesting one was building a gun to fire bullets at 3,000 km per second and simulate asteroid, earth impacts on different surfaces.

The International Space stations, the Hubble telescope several space probes
are backing up the ground based telescopes of several kinds. Light , Radar, Xrays.
and new super computers using new scanning techniques.

The Asteroid threat is real and global warming or cooling could be made much worse. By a much smaller asteroid than the large number of earth killer asteroids in the solar system.

Pest,
You present an interesting tour of the state of space exploration.

Now just imagine, if all the AGW reparations that we are being urged to hand over to “victim nations” –who if the truth be told, have largely inflicted the damage on themselves through uncontrolled population growth -- was re-directed towards space exploration.

Imagine how much more advanced we’d be and how much more secure humanity’s toe hold on the galaxy would be.