Ted, I'm wondering just how many reply posts you'll get to your article. Yes, no doubt you'll get at least one skeptic who is somewhere out in cyberspace enjoying the "good life" and who will, just as you predict, hang onto that lifestyle like most others until all hope for our planet is lost, but the truth is that you may not get many posts because anyone with half a brain must sense that the end of civilisation as we know it lurks just around the corner. No need to reply. Nothing more to say!
I am one with you in attempting to live in a much more sustainable fashion. I bought a bush block and built my home many years ago (for reasons other than sustainablity) and have in the past few years attempted to make it self sufficient. It's coming along well, but one thing continues to plague me and it's this...
What happens when food scarcity begins to bite hard (pardon the pun) and society begins to break down? Do you believe that eco-communities will survive the onslaught of savage hoards as they move in starving masses across the landscape like locusts devouring all the food and the stored provisions of foward thinking people like yourself?
And just how do we go about altering the minds of those who are at present reasonably well off? The suggestion of a lifestyle very much different to the one they're accustomed to is akin to threatening them with a shotgun. I've tried it and I've found it's much better to speak only to the committed few, although I do see signs that people are starting to wake up, yet they lack the skill to change the future nightmare into something more practical.
Personally, I can't think of anything better than a removal from our consumeristic present and into a much more simple future. I wish you well in spreading your message.

Ted Trainer says
"The Simpler Way could be a far more satisfying way of life. Consider being able to live well on two days work for money a week, without any threat of unemployment, or insecurity in old age, in a supportive community. "

yes, I'll be in that, where do I sign up!

It appears our shortage of water in the Murray Darling Basin is going to raise food prices in the next 12 months. In 2006 when we lost less that half the banana crop, banana prices rose 5 times, so when we lose half our food crops due to drought then fresh fruit, vegetables and milk will be luxury items

Well this is the biggest load of drivel I have read on these forums yet. Thankfully even the most stupid people will see this as such. This guy is obviously a Paul Erlich wannabe (and Erlich only predicted the deaths of 100s of millions, ol' Trainer sounds like he is going for 3 billion). Mass famine and economic collapse has been predicted by numerous doomsayers throughout human history, in reality things are on the improve.

He also brings into his alarmist piece the terrifying consequences of peak oil. Does he really believe that society will crumble becuase we run out of oil (which may be much further down the line than he thinks)? No, very unlikely. Other fuels and energy sources, a lot already in development thanks to gobal warming hysteria, will replace fossil fuels and power our future societies.

Trainer also sees "disturbing climactic effects" from our polluting ways. He seems quite happy to attribute this any other negative to our indulgent lifestyles. I wonder what he would have made of any of the numerous climate transitions of the recent past.

He finishes his rant by turning on his readers with a good old "i told you so!" even though none of his predictions seem likely to be fulfilled. Well Ted you won't be around for me to give you one back.

"He also brings into his alarmist piece the terrifying consequences of peak oil. Does he really believe that society will crumble becuase we run out of oil (which may be much further down the line than he thinks)?"
Alzo, I'm quite sure you've written your reply simply as bait to draw out a million reasons as to why Ted Trainer is correct, but I'll bite anyway!
Alzo, if you think peak oil is some kind of joke, I'm predicting it will be you who has egg on their face before too much longer. The World's population of 6.5 billion has only been made possible through the use of fossil fuels. It should be closer to 2.5 billion at best and would be at that level were it not for the discovery of oil. Society cannot go on with "business as usual" without the "black gold."
If you'd done your homework on the peaking of oil (with gas and coal to follow closely) you'd know that science won't save us this time. The sheer scale needed to replace our present oil driven way of life is not possible without a long transition phase to a more sustainable way of life and we don't have that long. Practically everything you look around at and see is here simply because of fossil fuel and oil in particular, but I'm guessing you already know that. Nobody can be that cocooned from reality.
Humanity has, as an entity, only arrived at this place in history simply because of unrelenting greed. Our present rate of depletion is very much unsustainable. Even "blind Freddy" can see that we cannot continue down this path.
Yes, doomsayers have come and gone and that's the unfortunate part. Humanity is too used to hearing someone cry "wolf" but this time the wolf is at the door and people just like you alzo, are all too keen to open it.
Ok, I've bitten and I won't bite any more on this post. I'll let others more adept in science and writing do that for me.
Wildcat.

Aime...I knew wouldn't be able to resist after i read your first comment that has a certain pious tone about it. I'm glad you won't be biting again as its pretty hard to logically argue with enviro zealots.

I didn't actually say anywhere that peak oil is "some kind of joke" or that it won't happen. I said that it won't be the end of society or civilisation as we know it. There will be changes yes but nothing as radical as what Trainer is proposing. Or you for that matter with your "onslaught of savage hoards as they move in starving masses across the landscape like locusts devouring all the food and the stored provisions of foward thinking people"....wow talk about biblical.
Manking will simply find another thing to burn or produce energy from.

As for peak coal, present reserves put it at about 600 years supply. Hardly soon is it? Do you really think we will be burning coal for energy in 600 years? Or even 100?

So Trainer is not a doomsayer? How about you? Comments like "but this time the wolf is at the door" seems to say otherwise. I guess you'll come and go too.

"I'll let others more adept in science and writing do that for me"....good idea, maybe Trainer should follow your advice.

any fool can see what needs to be done. the hard part is getting it done by human beings. even greenies just don't get it: the problem isn't ecological, it's political. worse than that, political is just the surface manifestation of biological drives not visibly within social control.

nature has a solution for the onrushing ecological disaster, the human race will be pruned back radically. the means may be gentle, the old standbys of famine, disease, and war. or the means may be final: a catastrophic shift in climate due to some metastable threshhold being crossed.

either way, a simpler lifestyle will result.

Well said, Ted. I read an essay of yours on zero growth years ago and was convinced then you were right and am even more so now. I hope you can continue to speak up on these issues. More and more people will be coming to the same conclusion now that we are feeling the effects of global warming and beginning to question the lifestyle factors that have contributed to it.

I have just read "When the Rivers run Dry" by Fred Pearce and his figures on the water required to produce one litre of milk or a cotton t-shirt for example are quite staggering. All over the world we are draining our rivers. Some systems are already beyond recovery with the once productive surrounding land now a saline waste.

So much of the science on water, fisheries, forests, oil and land supports your argument. The corporate control over government and media these days though means such information probably won't filter through to the man on the street. Many of the powerbrokers in a position to effect change for the better aren't at all bothered by the fact that millions will perish as a result of rising sea levels, severe weather events, famine, and resource warfare. They'll be right. They'll buy their way out of trouble and to them that's all that matters.

"For 50 years you have been told about all this..." Why stop at 50 years? Its been about 200 years since good ol' Tom Malthus wrote his Essay on the Principles of Population, where he claimed population growth would outstrip food production and we'd all die.

But why stop even there? All throughout history there have been people claiming that THE END IS NIGH!

To be sure, there are problems now that didn't really exist in the past; but there is a great deal more knowledge and technical skill as well. I think the world will make it through the coming crisis, and although people in the developed nations will almost certainly have to reduce their consumption, I haven't seen enough evidence yet to suggest the kind of mass-death scenarios that the more enthusiastic doomsayers are brandishing at us.

And I really don't think that some sort of utopia is the answer. I suspect it would be highly inefficient.

Cheers!

Who knows the answer? Biology would say that there is for any environment a carrying capacity both for food and waste disposal, but no one is ure what this number is though many point to the hectares each of us now need for our life. Supported at present and presumably for some time to come by technology. Dr Trainer sees no possibility of such allowing our continuance. I agree.
Resource wars economic or military will doubtless remove some, but experience says the number will simply rise again in a burst of sexual activity consequent on war.
Plagues may aid our endeavours to maintain lifestyle but such will probably be dismissed as doomsday for new technologies and preparedness will suffice.
Pollution CO2 -e or other may overcome any earth feed back and return to the past age of low O2 High Co2-e.
But here presumably the rich who use their advisors to protect them have surely devised community versions of habitats allowing life for a limited number. If you doubt this think of the Reagan/Thatcher round of greed. The Russian empire or even Zimbabwe or even the Afghanistan/Iraq war and Iran to come.
So which ever way it goes some will survive and the cost will be born by the poor greater in number having no recourse to doing their own thing even living sensibly for some factor enabling such will be wanted by the powerful.
I suggest enjoy making minor contribution ‘do good’ feel good and pray you will be one of the chosen for saving.

The simpler life does not have to be a mind-numbing descent into peasantry. I can imagine continued growth of 4 to 5 percent per annum in goods and services, but with the emphasis on services. Lets have more drama, painting, poetry, psychological understanding, philosophy. The idea that growth necessitates a consumerism that destroys limited resources is false. Let us pursue a rich intellectual and emotional life that is spare in its consumption of oil and water and fertile land, but profligate in its use of human services and arts. GNP does not have to consume the planet. More service industries fewer industries that consume oil, water, land, and mineral resources. Okay, we need to cater for the material needs of the billions who don't get enough to eat, etc. But we in the developed "West" don't need more stuff, we need deeper satisfactions.

Dead right we can't go living like this, as the Federal Treasurer said was quoted in the wire news today . . . . . . .

Meanwhile, Treasurer Peter Costello said there was no doubt fruit and vegetable prices would rise as a result of no water being allocated for crops.

"We saw it with Cyclone Larry in north Queensland, the price of bananas went up four or five times," Mr Costello said.

"That's what you could be seeing in relation to stone fruit, horticulture, all those things."

see http://www.theage.com.au/news/National/Water-plan-doomed-without-Vic-says-govt/2007/04/20/1176697063703.html

Don't say you have not been warned!
What a load of tosh.
"We" need to do this and "we" need to do that.
Ted Trainer is only able to pursue his peculiar lifestyle thanks to the industrialized society in which he lives and the tax revenue "we" generate.
It's still a free country, he lives the way he sees fit and I will go on the way I always have or to quote Sam Goldwyn,"Include me out".

Well whatever we do, if its not sustainable, eventually
the wheels will fall off the cart and Mother Nature will
sort it all out.

The "Tragedy of the Commons" theory suggests that
most will act in their short term self interest, so
its bound to happen at one time or another.

I'm less concerned with Peak Oil. The price of oil
will simply go through the roof, so people will have
to learn to use it wisely. When that happens, out will
come the bicycles and bingo, we've helped solve the
obesity problem!

Lots of people are already downsizing. Treechangers,
seachangers, they are everywhere now.

There are really two main theories right now. One is
that humanity will keep innovating and solve whatever
needs solving. The other is that the world is overpopulated
and needs halving, for us to live sustainably. No point
having sleepless nights about the things we can't change,
if Nature needs to sort it out, so be it, it will happen
eventually. Acting in my own self interest of course,
I'll have no problem in growing the 20 acres of canola,
to power my vehicles :)

Peak oil! Thank god people are finally starting to talk about peak oil!

"Some geologists think petroleum supply will peak within a decade".

And some think, based on huge amounts of data, that oil production has already peaked (for example Matthew Simmons and Jeremy Leggett). Based on what I've read, I'm skeptical. But I also believe that a production peak will happen sooner rather than later. Non-OPEC oil has almost certainly peaked.

At present, oil is required for 70% of transportation energy usage. Think about it. If I want to bring a dodad to market, I have to transport it somehow. I may put it in my car and drive it there. I may have to fly it overseas. When and oil production peak occurs, (and it will), the cost of oil will rise. Thus, I pass the increased cost of the dodad on to my consumers. With a scarce comodity needed for 70 effing percent of transportation energy, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that the consqences of oil depletion are looking to be quite nasty.

Alzo:
"I said that it won't be the end of society or civilisation as we know it."

Maybe not. But I'm affraid the experts and literature are against you on this one. The Hirsch report, prepared for the US department of energy in 2005, states, in its opening statement:

"The peaking of world oil production presents the U.S. and the world with an unprecedented risk management problem. As peaking is approached, liquid fuel prices and price volatility will increase dramatically, and, without timely mitigation, the economic, social, and political costs will be unprecedented."

A report by the US Office of Naval Petroleum states:

"A serious supply-demand discontinuity could lead to world wide economic choas".

While the US Army corps of engineers states that:

"The Army and the nation’s heavy use of oil and natural gas is not well coordinated with either the nation’s or the Earth’s resources and upcoming availability."

Civilisation may not collapse, but the consequences of an unmitigated peak are not good

Alzo
"As for peak coal, present reserves put it at about 600 years supply. Hardly soon is it?"

Where did you pull that number from? Please provide a link or reference. Looking at:

http://www.geo.umn.edu/courses/3005/resource.html

a US production peak is expected around 2150. Australia, with much less coal than the US, won't be far behind. That's 150 years, not 600.

NSW, the state in Australia that exports the most coal (although not the state with the largest reserves) could experience a peak in production by 2035:
http://www.smh.com.au/news/environment/reserves-to-dry-up-as-clean-coal-becomes-viable/2007/04/09/1175971023057.html

Also, you neglect to mention that there is a significant problem with burning the black stuff, notably CO2 emmisions, along with a host of other problems, such as acid rain, CO pollution, and open pit mining.

I think the author is right. We can't go on living like this (rant ended)

Ted Trainer writes;

“The greatest tragedy is that we could quickly and easily move to sustainable and just ways - if we wanted to.”

Yes….absolutely!

We could use the current resource boom to set ourselves up sustainably…instead of it taking us rapidly in the wrong direction. The trouble is, no political entity is willing to do this.

I have pushed hard for Rudd, and Beazley before him, to concentrate on sustainability issues. I have asserted that if they had done this, with the right sort of promotion, they could have set Labor up as a very different alternative to the Libs, and they could have harnessed the huge latent concern in the general community about the direction we are heading in and the need to change it with priority.

I thought that when Rudd gained the Labor leadership, we had a real chance to get the hell off this future-destroying continuous-maximised-growth bullsh!t and start the necessary changes rolling towards national sustainability. But no, he hasn’t listened.

I gave up on the Greens and Democrats ages ago in this regard.

continued

What we need is a whole series of pretty strong but not too critical kicks up the collective arse, in order to get the imperative of sustainability through the thick heads of the average joe.

We’ve got one happening now – the water crisis in all our major population centres and in the food-bowl of the Murray-Darling.

But amazingly, our governments just continue to allow, if not actively promote, rapid population growth straight into these water-stressed areas!! And the general community hardly says boo about it!!

So it seems we’ve got a long way to go before we get off this whacko continuous-growth-has-got-to-happen-no-matter-what psychosis.

Peak oil is potentially another good arse-kicker. If it hits us in such a manner as to sting hard but not critically damage our economy, food supply lines and society overall, then hopefully it can lead to the necessary stable-economy-and-population seed in the minds of the masses, and hence to support for government decisions to frigging well stop expanding in the face of a stressed resource base and badly damaged environment!!

Potentially, we could get through the transition to sustainability fairly smoothly. But in all likelihood we’ll have to suffer the collapse or virtual collapse of society as we know it, before we get the message

I don't think anyone can deny that there's not enough cake to go around. But its more convenient for people to ignore the fact that most of the world must remain poor if the minority are to remain rich. The global system is arranged in such a way as to ensure this balance between poverty and extravagance. As it stands, in order to live the lifestyles to which we have become accustomed we must tread over others while we attempt to numb our guilt in the form of foreign aid.

The author suggests that as more of us consume more, things are going to come to a head. I would predict that rich countries like Australia will cruise through the upcoming problems associated with climate change and food shortages relatively unscathed. It will be the world's poor and powerless who will be left to bare most of the cost. Kind of tragic when you realise that global warming is our mess, not theirs.

apologies for my pessimism...

Let's get over this nonsense that anyone owes anyone else -foreign aid is not an obligation

If Bangla -Desh had a population of 1million it's conceivable it could have a Singaporean or Malaysian standard of living but with a population of 100 million plus it’s always going to be a struggle .

If population pressures didn’t entice the desperate to colonise marginal mangrove swamps & marshes ,there would be far fewer ‘environmental refugees’.

The major “arse kicker” ( or should that be head-kicker) for Australians is going to be that regardless of the best-laid plans of environmentalists, our neighbours who don’t even have the word ‘environmentalist’ in their vocabulary ( or the concept ‘family planning’ -for that matter) , with the assistance of bleeding hearts in our ranks, are likely to gate-crash our party.

If we want to build a sustainable model within Australia we first need sustainable borders.

Keep up the good work Ted, you put the challenge well.

The brick wall to social change that I find in my inquiry is that of complacency and defensiveness. I believe the challenge for change agents is to help people deal with the demons (fears) that underpin that defensiveness in a compassionate and supportive way. My view is that this is a uniquely personal process that has to, critically examine the cultural forces that create our personalities. An unsustainable culture is going to create dysfunctional personalities, (from the perspective of sustainability).

Assuming of course the individual wants to change; and here it appears we have to address the sources of human motivation. Our instinctive forms of motivation appear to me to have been shaped by evolution and culture.

To live sustainably means we have to move beyond this pragmatism of a physical survivalist mentality, that is the prevailing world view; to reembrace the nourishment and celebration of the human spirit, in new and more appropriate ways, than religion has offered in the past.

Sadly Ted , I fear the force of reason will never of of itself,be enough.

Kumbaya keyboard chorus strikes again.

Ahhh, l feel much better about my complacency now.

Thank you.

I'll say it again.

RECORD "Crude Impact" on Tuesday night's SBS, 8:30 to 10:30 with a half hour intermission for the 9:30 news. Then record "2013: Oil no more" a French production which is showing at 10:30. Then watch BOTH a number of times.

The best bit of Crude Impact is the Chapter on Peak Oil. Watch that at least 5 times after you've recorded it.

Then, to contribute sensibly to this forum, you'll need to investigate and try and debunk the scientific data presented on this movie.

Then when you can't, you might start to think along some different lines about our future. I'm not sure I agree with everything Ted Trainer writes about capitalism needing to go, but do agree many systemic things need to change. I have been quite encouraged by stuff on Worldchanging.com regarding new business systems of thinking. I do not think peak oil HAS TO mean dieoff (unless we are really stupid) but that peak oil is imminent is a scientific mathematical fact. Even Dr Karl agrees.

The forecasts for our planet are scary. But what can I do as an individual in Australia? For a start I won’t be voting for an arrogant government that rushed through its ill-researched Murray-Darling takeover in an election year as a political stunt and refuses to take any steps with the environment that might threaten the economy (Global warming doesn’t?)

I do however believe that the environment, including water resources, should be a National rather than a State issue but I am not comfortable about giving politicians, with their short term focus, control. How to achieve?

On an individual level I am installing water tanks and looking at solar energy, conscious all the time that these are pathetically small steps.

I am not so sure however that the immediate solution is for us all to revert to a stone age like existence. Realistically this is not going to happen voluntarily. Is our economy not designed to respond to demand and are not the global mega-corporations capable of bringing about rapid change? Presumably then if enough people know enough to demand change in products or services change could occur rapidly.

It seems to me then that education and information is the key – bring on more of “Inconvenient Truth’, “Stern Report” etc.

But Hart, the sheer difficulty of this thing is GETTING people to read the reports that are out there about oil. For some reason it is OK to talk about Global Warming — but try telling people we are about to enter the last oil crisis!

The following reporter has some interesting insights into why peak oil will NEVER be announced BEFORE the event, which is why we will walk into the crisis blindly.

"Thus, the real dilemma of coping peak oil, for a while at least, is really quite simple. If the government should lay out the full ramifications of peaking in hopes of rallying the people to make preparations, the most immediate consequence is likely to be serious economic setback triggered by an unambiguous announcement itself."
...

As no responsible government wants to see economic troubles start any sooner than absolutely necessary, there will probably never be a strong, clear, unambiguous, widely disseminated report on the timing of peak oil. The National Petroleum Council is poised to pronounce on the issue in the next few months. It would not be surprising if they come up with a formulation similar to the GAO’s. If governments have their way, we will stumble into peak oil over a period of years during which gasoline prices cycle inexorably upwards and various compensating actions are take."

http://tinyurl.com/278tge

"I'm not sure I agree with everything Ted Trainer writes about capitalism needing to go,"

Well on that one he's surely wrong. Capitalism isn't the
problem, its people always wanting to be even richer.

Govt bureaucrats arn't going to solve anything, innovation
and a market will. I'm told that alternate energy is the
new buzzword in Silicon Valley, so we'll see what they come
up with. It still pisses me off, when its 42deg outside,
that I need to use coal powered electricity to power the
air conditioner. Innovation should be able to solve that,
if the cost of power goes up.

For all those panicking about peak oil, why panic if you
live in Aus? No reason you can't move to the country,
buy a block, run a few chucks and a veggie patch, sit
back and smell the roses a bit. One day it will hit
you that its a far better lifestyle, then the city
treadmill that so many are franticly treading on.

Eclipse, thanks for the heads-up on the SBS program. I probably would have missed it since I'm not an avid television fan.

Thanks too for the link. I believe the author has it about right. Most of the population won't see this one coming until we're well down the track which is what makes it so damned serious. Workers in Western Nations are doing ok in present boom times whilst they waste their lives playing with grown-up "toys" such as needless laptops, Ipods, digital cameras and mobile phones with so much junk on them, they've become another distraction to what's happening in the real World. At the same time, OPEC and other oil producing countries are busy trying to wring as much oil from the ground as they did last year and failing miserably.

And while there are things like electric cars waiting in the wings, the sheer scale of providing them after the oil crises is recognised for what it is will be overwhelming. The rich may still be able to afford wheels or some other manner of getting from point A to B, but once again, the commoners will be the ones to suffer.
Wildcat.

Eclipse, my thoughts still are that growing public awareness coupled with hip-pocket economic demand for change may present the only short term hope we have.

In his “afterword” to his book “”The End of Oil” author Paul Roberts reaffirmed his dark view of the likelihood of economic chaos, worldwide unemployment etc. However he did also state that “What has changed….is our awareness. More people and policy makers now seem to understand that the energy system is in serious and growing trouble and that without a fundamentally new approach we are almost assured of catastrophic failure” – p341

What is also changing is the price of oil. Ultimately this is likely to increase the demand for different & more efficient energy sources & changes in lifestyle, use of public transport etc. Whether those demand and enlightenment changes occur soon enough – who knows?

Good on you Ted, you can look your grandkids in the eye and say at least you tried. But given our apathy and token efforts towards sustainability, it seems we prefer extinction to moderating our appetites. Ah well, better luck next time, Gaia.

duncan mills
I would like hear your argument/case in greater detail.
It would be interesting perhaps enlightening.

Just In The Nick of Time!

We say we want to save the environment, we want peace, and to eradicate poverty. And we do mean yes. This is an affirmative.

For the first time since WWII, we have an opportunity to utilise the depth of our most practical human knowledge. We get to look at the accumulation of this knowledge and we are encouraged to be forthright and critical thinkers, about this knowledge.

The complexities that we know or perceive are prevalent and utterly exposed. They are unified as one finding. They are telling us we each need to change.

Somehow I see this is as an exceptional time for Australia.

Perhaps we are all growing up, learning to take responsibility?

This is a time to deliberate on what we are learning to know as citizens, everywhere.

It is time to grow.

http://www.miacat.com

Ah, "die-offs" is it now? Paul Ehrlich called them "die-backs", and they were supposed to have happened by 1985. Thankfully, many developing countries have been spared this rubbish and experienced large scale "lives-back".

This is the biggest issue of our times. AND SO IT SHOULD BE! We are talking about our planet here, giver of life, our home - our only one. And not just ours, over 1000 species of fauna and flora become extinct every year. This is not 'our' planet afterall, it is every being's, every form of life and it is not our right to destroy it. "Climate Change" is not an impending disaster -it is an unravelling one and it is occuring now. And it needs to be stopped.
Capitalism IS the cause of massive environmental destruction and by its very nature - it is incapable of fixing the problem. You can allready see what happens to companies that start to become 'eco-friendly', they plummet on the stock market. So long as this dog-eat-dog power hungry system is controlling the planet it will head towards destruction. Carbon trading, energy saving lightbulbs . . . companies that call themselves 'carbon neutral' because they plant a few trees for the tons of emmisions they emit . . . none of this will cut it. Yes, we do need a radical restructuring of society. And its not just on an individual level (although this too is important) can this be achieved. So long as oil companies supress new technologies, so long as people complain about the 'unsightliness' of wind power, and so long as the 'best solution' Howard can come up with is Nuclear power (never mind the terrible environmental costs of extracting uranium), this problem will not be solved, will infact worsen. this is the call for people to WAKE UP. Capitalism and globalisation has allready destroyed millions of lives of those living in third world countries, and culturally perverting those in the first. Now it is our planet that is at stake. As unpopular as this sentiment may be in the twentyfirst century - it couldn't be more true than it is today-
"Socialism or Barbarism" - Karl Marx

Whether people believe we are on a knife edge in relation to monumental environmental isues or not; there is little doubt that we live in a time of great environmental change. Resources are finite; oil reserves will run out, fish stocks are being depleted, desertification is ocuring, and forests are being mined. The're background environmental issues that are occuring as a back drop to climatic change.

It is not partiularly helpful to suggest that it's the fault of capitalism; Russia and China have huge environmental issues. China is said to be one of the greatest contributors to green house gases after the USA.
Political processes probably have more bearing on poor decision making, rather than political ideologies as suggested by ana H.

An example of poor political decision making is Macquarie Island; because of an invasion of rabbits and rats the eco structure is about to collapse. There is much bitter debate between the Federal Government and Tasmanian State government about responsibilities and who will pay for what; while the environment is deteriorating at an alarming rate. Clearly, it is much easier to resolve environmental issues within a nation; than to try and resolve environmental isues that transcend national boundaries.

Mr. Howard says in relation to climatic change that it must not have an economic impact. The view that the way we use the environment has a financial cost has been around for a number of years; but it has not been factured in to traditional economic theory. However, many authoritive figures (eg Stern Report)are saying that the sooner real action takes place to try and remediate the flow of green house gases the cheaper the process will be in the long run.

Mr.Howard has landed us in a war in Iraq with arguably less evidence for the need; than the evidence acrued to become involved in a war on green house gases.
continued

continuation

Those who state that climatic change is not really happening potentially put future generations at huge risk; the viability of the planet to hold a population of any organism is a scenario argued by some. At least, if those promoting tackling climate change full steam ahead have got it wrong there is not a dire consequence, as is the case with the climatic change skeptics.

"Kumbaya keyboard chorus strikes again."

I love that. It's so true!

It feels like A cappella singing to me. What a fine thread this is.

- and to meet so many kindred spirits, is surely Online Opinion working to it's full potential. Cheers all, and congratulations on a fine article Ted.

Depleted fisheries, desertification, global warming, pollution, biodiversity loss (extinctions), deforestation, resource depletion, topsoil loss (at the area of Germany per year), freshwater, etc are ALL made worse by population increasing.

Even if we made massive 20% cuts to consumption and net pollution, a 30% rise in population would undo any good we had achieved in "lifestyle".

On the other hand, if Sydney stopped growing so fast (half a million people in the last 10 years) maybe our traffic would not be so bad, and our own water system might not be in such crisis? Which leads me to ask, do we have a water crisis, or do we have a people crisis?

How many people can this tired old sunburned, phosphorus depleted country support post-industrial agriculture anyway?

Don't forget, record SBS 8:30 Tuesday night. "Crude Impact" continues after the news intermission, and the oil expose continues into the next feature, "20:10 oil no more".

Ahh Eclipse, its not all gloom and doom just yet you know...

On population, its a global issue, which needs addressing.
We've gone from 1.5 billion to 6.5 billion in 100 years.
Nobody even seems to question why we need to go to 10 billion.

Those 80 million a year added, are surely a problem, but
nobody seems to care. They are mainly in the poorest countries
btw.

The population of Sydney problem is small, in comparison to the
global problem. Given Indonesia's birthrate, in 50 years they
will have 500 million people to deal with. I doubt if they
would just die quietly, whilst we in Aus live in relative
abundance.

The best thing to do really, is to live sustainably. I grow
grains, meat, biodiesel etc. Looks like those city slickers
who are living unsustainably, might have to cough up and
pay more, for what they have previously bought for a relative
pittance.

I doubt if the West will be the big losers. People will
simply adjust. I bet you could reduce your fuel consumption
by 50%, if you tried.

The third world will be the losers. No more having 8 babies,
they might just starve if you do. From a philosophical
point of view, as its unsustainable, adapting to making
things sustainable, is not such a bad thing in the bigger
scheme of things.

Ted

Complex life emerged on Earth about 500 million years ago. Can you comprehend that number? Humanoids became humans as we understand that word to mean about 150,000 years ago. Still a big number relative to your life expectancy.

So - Ted, this is what is going to happen with 100% certainty. We humans are on our last legs and will be gone within 1000 years [maybe in only a fraction of that time] i.e. in our 150,000 year history, we have passed the 149 digit in a series of 150 digits and on our way to meet 150. After that the planet will continue on.

Some say that a few humans will survive as small mammals did after the megafauna became extinct. If they do, then existence will be very precarious as they will have only the basic technology. For awile there will be leftover tools such as iron axes and spades. Eventually without the technology to make more, they would have gone. We are so weak relative to other species without technology. The species could be snuffed out as it came very close to being once in Africa as mitachondrial DNA has revealed.

An important point is raised here. For over 99% of humans who have lived prior to the 20th century and for over 70% of those who have been born since 1900, life has been brutal. If we are worried about the price of petrol in 10 years time, then the circle of our vision has a very small diameter.

Our time span on this planet in the big picture can be summed up as: arrived a second ago, here for a second and gone by the next second. The Sun will rise and set as it did long before we appeared and will rise and set long after we have disappeared.

Ted. Just enjoy today.

healthwatcher

We have created an incredible social system that works on the basis that the more we consume the better off we become.

This is fine while there is plenty to consume but once we start to run out of resources or when the consumption of resources starts to lead to runaway bad effects like global warming then the system that rewards consumption needs to be rethought.

Let us start with the premise that the less we consume the better off we are? That is those that consume more resources that have a limit or whose consumption is bad for the rest of us should pay for the privilege and those payments should go to those that consume less.

Do that and we will soon see a change in consumption patterns and we will get a positive feedback loop that will start to reduce our rates of consumption as people move to the things that are "cheaper" and make them "better off".

We have to be more proactive than just simply making something more expensive like carbon taxes. We have to make those that - for example - do not have children get paid from those that do.

Healthwatcher, that's not good enough for me.

"Just enjoy to day" is a selfish attitude that shares no real sense of responsibility to the next generation. We are a self-aware species with an incredibly powerful evolutionary tool called "culture". Ted was doing his best to refine that tool. Our culture can change the way our species behaves in the blink of an eye, evolutionary speaking. We can rezone our cities for New Urbanism and around Transit Orientated Developments, and just the act of rezoning will have enormous benefit. Our cities are always changing... so what if the failed suburban experiment in mono-purpose blandness as far as the eye can see is not replaced when each individual suburban home reaches the end of it's practical life? What if, in normal rates of attrition, those lots are gradually demolished and returned to local agricultural land, and the former owners compensated in some fashion with a part-grant / tax relief to move to a New Urbanism district? What if we rezoned our cities around dense and diverse New Urbanism principles, and permanently saved about 12-15% of our domestic oil use in just a decade of "normal" attrition rates?

This can be done. It only requires the legal imperative.

What exactly is a "legal imperative"?

"What if we rezoned our cities around dense and diverse New Urbanism principles, and permanently saved about 12-15% of our domestic oil use in just a decade of "normal" attrition rates?
This can be done. It only requires the legal imperative."

Eclipse, quite frankly I can't think of anything scarier, then
the Chardonay set dreaming up yet more policies and trying
to enforce them legally!

Who said that high density living is the answer? If you
read "The Human Zoo", basically thats what you have and its
solved nothing, just created more problems.

If you think back 50 years or so, people actually lived
quite energy efficiently. On their quarter acre block,
people would grow their own veggie patch, grew some fruit,
run a few chooks, have a rainwater tank. Kids would cycle
to school or to the shops, people worked not far from home.
The local community was the focus. Longer distances, people
used the trains.

What high density living has created, is very much a human
zoo. Neurotic people in their tiny cages, more crime,
no space for kids to play, more energy wasted on all sorts
of things, to deal with their neurosis. Long term its also
totally unsustainable. Cut the power to a big city for
a few days and its back to laws of the jungle really.

So high density cities are really the problem, not the answer.

What a thought provoking article and what a great thread!

And why is it that the world's population needs to keep on growing? Let's reward those who have no children, or 2 or less for starters. Let's aim for a zero population growth.

Missed an important factor in applying probability to extract future predictions ted...human intelligence...the very factor that brought us to this point is what will save our future, but I agree we have to act now...

Dont think it will be 'simple-life style' rather high tech, small ecofootprint life is what our intelligent pursuit will drive towards...and one big difference...current mentality of consumerism for getting and holding material possessions would be replaced by drive to maintain human-earth equilibrium, this need arises now thanks to our communal act to push us to outer limits of survivable environment.

yeah, money will become a tool for trading as it always should have been than the current higher-than-god need with our daily striving for more of it...and the whole current industry that exists around it to remove money from us thats making our current world go around...

I think the aboriginals had this down pat when their mentality they only borrow the land and with it the obligation to care for same...we are getting there too...after all what do we take when we die?hmmm an inevitable question we should all ask at the early part of our life than near the end...might lead to a life acts driven by our intelligence applied to seeing and caring for all the important factors that affect our lives and us as a society ie less focus on preserving our own possessions and more acting to prevent damage and destruction to the balance of things of what is common in society and nature while improving all our quality of lives, particularly well being of children everywhere...definitely more sustainable

ie mentality of seeing all of us living in a self sustaining unreplenishable fish tank ecosystem where each living affects all of us in small to big ways and so identifying an unbalanced selfserving element and addressing it quickly becomes more important for ssurvival than acting to improving the fish tank...

Sam

Odd how the establishment of a new utopia invariably requires "legal imperatives".
Stalin's forced collectivization in the 20's required "legal imperatives".
Pol pot's agrarian reform required "legal imperatives"; the same in North Korea, Vietnam, Cuba etc.
Eclipse Now's "New Urbanism" sounds unsettlingly similar to Nicolae Ceausescu's Systematization.

Nice.

Why don't you come up with a plan for a world with drastic liquid fuel shortages. This is not tinfoil hat territory — the data speaks for itself. Watch tomorrow night's SBS at 8:30 and then get back to me with your techno-fantasy suggestions.

There ARE amazing new renewable energy technologies, but the last I checked most of them produce ELECTRICITY not liquid fuels. This is a cheap oil crisis, not an electricity crisis (yet). Even Dr Karl can see that we are at peak oil.

So go ahead, call me names, attack my motives, whatever you want. The laws of physics will win in the end.

Reply to horus.
<duncan mills
I would like hear your argument/case in greater detail.
It would be interesting perhaps enlightening.
Posted by Horus, Saturday, 21 April 2007 5:43:02 PM>

Horus; To argue would be to sustain the faulty paradigm, surely?

My case however:
History shows us that at the level of social change , reason has rarely in the broad sweep worked for a human persistence of quality. Maybe the self aggrandisement of clubs of nations, but is that enough for a just perpetuity?

I would suggest that only reason in the service of faith will open the window open for a dignified future.

That I believe, is a personal journey, guided by continuous personal critical inquiry.

What are the golden questions that may serve each of on such a journey That is a collaborative project worth working on!!

With no claims to exclusivity or adequacy, a few that I think help are
-In my existence do I wish to do the world harm or good?
-Which makes me feel good about my existence?
-What are the values that make my existence enjoyable?
-What are the consequences to the planet of these values of mine?
-Is it enough that I change myself?
-With respect to these questions, how well have I done to day?

This reiterative process is dialectical rather than rational and discovers deeper motives than those elucidated by reason alone, and I suggest generative of a faith that is far more powerful than force of reason alone

Tapping away earnestly at your computers here will get absolutely nowhere.

Get up off your big, fat bums and get out there actually doing something about all this!

Chatter is cheap. Actually doing something about this issue will stretch you out and give you a nice little personal challenge.

Stop talking and DO!

And there's the rub...doing...rather than talking. Most of these posters would be hypocritical to the extreme in reality. What an eclectic bunch of views, some just downright scary. Thankfully most of them will never see the light of day.

ChrisC said "Where did you pull that number from? Please provide a link or reference.That's 150 years, not 600."
ChrisC your confusing proven reserves with extractable reserves, big difference. Extractable coal reserves with current technologies is closer to 600 years (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal)
This doesn't mean we will still be using coal that far into the future as technology will bring us cleaner energies.

Nice work Ted. I attended a talk you gave back in about 1993. It was similarly inspiring and yet somehow too difficult to comprehend. Despite the detractors, I think the evidence, logic and consensus are in your camp. It will indeed be hard to find a couple of extra planets nearby to grow our vegies. So, how do we re-build a society to have localised no-growth economics without first collapsing into chaos? Your website "The Simpler Way" has plenty of thoughts for how to get there. They make sense, all grounded in small, local community activity. I struggle to see these ideas being palatable to the vast majority who crave the latest gadget. I found a glossy in my letter box yesterday from Aussie Post advertising mobiles with the line “changing seasons, changing phones” - so I’m encouraged to buy a new friggin phone because it’s Autumn?? Cripes, I’m part of the mad hoard. Sure, I have chooks and I reuse my greywater, but I’ve got a whopping mortgage and I want to buy a 27 speed roadie. I’m reading this stuff because I’m interested in the future, but of course I can only do that because I’ve got a wiz bang computer and internet connection. I’ve got a 13 year old kid who gives me grief because she doesn’t get the stuff her friends get. If she grows up feeling deprived but aware of the world, have I done a good thing or not? Perhaps I’m looking for absolution here?

You point to a nasty time ahead, with us sitting on the tracks and the train is coming. I also see it coming and I don’t like the look of it. I think most of us worry, but struggle to talk to their neighbour, let alone consider a neighbourhood farm.

I sometimes wonder why the Good Life was a funny TV show

Hi Ted and readers.
Well done thou good and faithful servant...But your analysis does not get to the fundamental problem, which is psycho-spiritual unawareness. For example, over consumption yes; deeper level greed; deeper level fear of not having enough, deeper level unawareness/disconnection from the Source and/or other entities thereof; a psychopathology if you like stemming in essence from childhood trauma (conditioning) with neuropsychological sequelae (a simple shut-down or the closed mind syndrome).
Indeed 'attitude is all'. Our society is going to change only when enough personal attitudes have changed, whether that be from personal or collective disaster (the hard way) or a personal decision to change (the easy way). That last can result in the Buddhist 'enlightenment' in this life when the necessary work has been done, resulting in indeed a fundamental change in attitude. This in turn touches on the Noosphere theory of Teilhard de Chardin and certain thoughts in the Revelation of St.John, all consistent with eachother. Note that the Spiritual awakening referred to above is for many, not just for those who are 'special', that being a grievous misunderstanding and self-limitation. Siddartha Gautama (or was it the other way around?)was NOT a special person, just the son of a local chieftan, and his enlightenment was not complete either. We in this day and age can do better.
'Sleepers awake!' Regards.

Alzo, Alzo, Alzo, we reading the same article?

Looks like you only glanced at the first paragraph, saw what you wanted, and ran with the link. BP talks about 155 years PROVEN.

"British Petroleum, in its annual report 2006, estimated at 2005 end, there were 909,064 million tons of proven coal reserves worldwide (9.236 × 1014 kg), or 155 years reserve to production ratio. This figure only includes reserves classified as 'proven', exploration drilling programs by mining companies, particularly in under-explored areas, are continually providing new reserves. In many cases, companies are aware of coal deposits that have not been sufficiently drilled to qualify as 'proven.' There is, therefore, much more recoverable coal in the world than indicated by proven reserve figures."

OK, so there might be more but here's the thing. A reserves to production ratio works on the 3 most misleading words in all energy reporting: "At current rates".

If you factor in economic growth requiring about 2% increase per year — which is what Ted's article was really all about, growth — you get far less. Peak coal could in fact be in about 15 to 20 years! And just as with peak oil, we are then into an era of dwindling, vastly harder to extract, vastly more expensive coal.
http://www.energybulletin.net/27524.html

2 page PDF of the Energy Watch Group here.
http://www.energywatchgroup.org/files/Coal_English.pdf

Gregson Vaux argues that coal to liquids programs (as recommended by the Hirsch report on Peak Oil) will also vastly speed up the onset of peak coal.
http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/052504_coal_peak.html

Sorry Alzo, but you need to read some more and always do the math for yourself. "At current rates" has not been an economic or political reality since the Industrial Revolution. We have almost always used exponentially more (except for the oil crisis — and the economic fallout from that kind of proves my point hey?)

EclipseNow says "Alzo, Alzo, Alzo, we reading the same article?"
I think so but you may be under the influence of some rather mind altering substances.

Proven reserves indeed mean drilled. I was talking about KNOWN extractable reserves using current technologies. This isn't even taking into account UNKNOWN reserves which cannot be estimated. There is probably even more of the stuff down there.

As for your peak coal references...well I'm speechless. Your first, the very important sounding "energybulletin.net". After viewing the linked article I saw the following at the bottom "This is Museletter #179 from Richard Heinberg." A Museletter? wtf? very scientific. #179? Boy this guy can Muse. And here is some excerpts from the about us page of "energybulletin.net":

"The opinions, inferences or calculations within individual news items are the responsibility of the author alone, and the editors of EnergyBulletin.net do not necessarily support them." ie. any fool can submit a story

"On the issue of resource depletion we will be favouring geological pessimism over economic theory based optimism." They musn't know many geologists...they're an optimistic bunch

Hmmm slightly biased?

EclipseNow's next mind blowing reference has a homepage that isn't even in english. Probably dodgy hard to tell.

As for "http://www.fromthewilderness.com" the URL said it all for me and in one word. Garbage.

I have never commented on the cost of extracting coal rising, falling or staying the same. I just prefer to try and put a few facts into the hysteria that Trainer and his ilk like to brew.

600 years reserve to production ratio sounds nice and comforting, especially because it's TRUE! We probably would have 600 years of coal left if we used it only at today's rates.

But I note that while you get busy psychoanalyzing WHY the sources I quote are wrong, you are not proving THAT they are wrong at all. You avoid discussion of economic growth requiring extra coal like the plague. Why? Because it's the uncomfortable mathematically provable reality that makes Ted Trainer actually look like he's onto something.

Look at the maths of growth. If you take one human lifetime of 70 years, the numbers work nicely. If you use x coal, but increase coal consumption by 1% per year, you'll need 2x at the end of 70 years. If you increase consumption by 2% per year, you'll need 4x. 3% is 8x. 4% per annum growth means 16x.

So that means, at just 4% growth per annum brought on by peak oil and coal to liquids programs, after 70 years you would require 16 times the coal per year. Debunk my sources all you like, all they have done is attach various growth scenarios to various government coal reserves data and energy agency reports. Go figure.

Even the Sydney Morning Herald was asking how much coal NSW really has.
http://www.smh.com.au/news/environment/reserves-to-dry-up-as-clean-coal-becomes-viable/2007/04/09/1175971023057.html

Sorry if you could not read the report from the Energy Watch Group?
If this link does not download a 2 page English report, please tell me.
http://www.energywatchgroup.org/files/Coal_English.pdf

The author claims we have a market economy. We don't. Doesn't he notice that only the tip of the iceberg as to why we don't is the fact that we have a Federal Treasurer? By definition, a market economy can't have such a thing (not to mention any other government employee or department).

Anyhow, I'm not particularly concerned about the future. I plan to hedge my bets. I'm going to by land in the country and engage in a certain level of self-sufficiency, but mainly because I'd like to save myself money (and be able to use as much power or water as I like), and also because I like the countryside and gardening.

Maybe our lifestyles are unsustainable, but the solution would not be any form of Green Communism. The solution would be the age-old solution in any situation of extreme resource competition: war. It's harsh to say this, but I don't really care (because I do want to continue my lifestyle). If the world's population were to be cut, aside from a decline in the Western birthrate that has been happening since the 70s for non-environmental reasons, the big cuts are going to occur in the Third World. If necessary, we'll commit genocide (directly or indirectly) and plunder. It's that simple. Do I feel bad about that? No, because that's survival and I'm just glad it would be them and not me. People can want to hold hands and be friends, but that's not the way of the world and we'd be fools for buying into such a notion.

"Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum."
If you want peace, prepare for war.

Eclipse Now...I debunk your sources because they are not credible and very unscientific. Written by people with the same agenda as you. Just because it is on the internet doesn't make it a credible source. It simply confirms your idea of how the world works, which is quite skewed. These same people predicted the world would run out of food in the 70's, base metals in the 80's and then oil in the 90's. Yet somehow all of these resources keep up with increasing consumption. I wonder how...

Yes all will run out, but the question of when is always the hardest to predict.

Alzo, do the math! Just saying the magic word "INTERNET" does not mean you can make the data in and logic of their arguments disappear.
Sorry Alzo, it does not work like that. Their arguments are completely logical... all it is is a little "investigative journalism" gathering the raw data, and running various growth equations next to it.

Also, you mentioned oil. SBS showed "Crude Impact" the other night.
The most vital information is in Chapter 6 and 7, which will fill you in a little on the oil situation.
http://www.sydneypeakoil.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=4828

Or try the Wikipedia article, and then please answer the following questions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_oil

Questions for Alzo.
1. When does Exxon Mobile (who deny there is a problem) admit that non-OPEC oil is going to peak and then move permanently into decline. (Non-OPEC is about half the planets oil production now... that's half the world's oil in decline.)
http://www.thebulletin.org/article.php?art_ofn=mj05cavallo

2. Peak discovery year?
In 1956 M. King Hubbert accurately predicted that American oil would peak in 1970 and then go into permanent decline. He did this by counting the consumption to discovery pattern. He was spot on.

Lets look at global oil discovery. With hundreds of billions to be made, with some of the most advanced technology, which year was the "peak" year for the world discovery world oil? In which year did we find the most oil? And what has been the trend for the last 40 years?

3. Are we ahead on discovery?
Are we replacing the oil we are consuming each year with fresh discoveries? If so, at what rates are we replacing it with new discoveries? Are we discovering twice as much oil as we use? 3 times as much? Or is it running the other way? What has been the discovery trend for the last 40 years as oil companies drill the entire globe?

Answer these questions from Wikipedia or do your own googling, or try the Australian Federal Senate inquiry into the end of the oil age.
http://tinyurl.com/hzyz5

Answer them honestly and factually, and you'll do yourself proud Alzo.

Reading the article and some of the comments has been interesting. But most want to fiddle around down in the weeds. And intellectualise some obvious and fundamental truths. There is one basic issue. Our planet is overpopulated with humans. Our patterns and levels of growth are unsustainable. We are consuming too much non renewable resource; we are misusing productive land; we are pushing Nature beyond its limits of regeneration; each community likes to consider its position in isolation from the problems and issues facing the collective. The Western world with its market based economies must match its leadership aspirations with appreciation of balance and moderation. The price of market failure is oblivion. And it looks to me as if no-one is in charge, or responsible. I can see the problems, and I think you can too. Why are we not working together on the solutions ?

Hi DRW, I guess we are not working together on the solutions because we are either a pleasure or fear inspired species. At the moment the dominant meme is pleasure seeking capitalism... money is our god and hedonism our creed. No one likes a wowser party-pooper that continually points out that if we "drink to excess, the wine will run out."

Yes, the fundamental problem is one of overpopulation.
Yet our economic addiction to growth compels high immigration into Western countries (whose own populations are in decline) to artificially buffer and grow the economy. This creates a brain drain in the home country, where there might only be 1 doctor for every 400 citizens... but hey? Australia (and other western nations) must have economic growth, and why not steal their doctors as well? (It makes me sick!) Not only that, but as they immigrate here their consumption, CO2 emissions, and footprint skyrocket.

So to show some of my fellow Australian's that there really is a problem in our "garden" I have to point down among the "weeds" to the more hip-pocket nerve issue of the oil running out. Sometimes that gets their attention. Most of the time it just generates an unthinking reflex reaction of "But when the prices rise, they'll have more incentive to discover more oil." (Der, do they know anything about oil discovery trends of the last 40 years).

Which reminds me — Alzo, if you want help answering those questions above the best place to go is straight to the Australian Federal inquiry into peak oil and look up oil supply and demand.

Eclipse Now I am not arguing against the case of Peak Oil...it will happen...in your hysteria to flood the forum with meaningless references you seem to have missed my point. A question for you....when do you predict world peak oil? Please just a number...not a thousand references.

My point was way back when, is that it will not cause a major crash of civilisation. There may be some wars and unrest but society will continue without us having to resort to some sort of troglodyte utopia.

Hi All

I know i am pretty much ignored as not being in the upper class and i would say i am working lower class now.

Why would i start a political party, easy question if it is the upperclass who is controlling the working and lower class, we are pretty much slaves to them.

With enviromental to solutions are normally easy.

I believe in 10 years we will have energy that is not uranium powered, which will not only be feasable but will also get cheaper.

Within 5 years we can cut greenhouse emmissions from australia and create a new maufacting sector australia owned,operated, product of australia.

Immigration has to be halted this is one off the major causes to our predicament and until we get it right this should be stopped as per TAPP's immigration policy.

You know i may not talk like the others but what i say we can do, the problem is do you really want to do it or just keep following what you have always have done.

Labor also with their 3 mines policy are hypocrites that they will send it overseas but not build a reactor here, i believe this will come.

IR is important and this comes down to the immigration and enviromental problem as well.
Bosses need protection but also workers and this is what has been lost in the last 20 years.
We have 2 parties with the interest of who will have power not that of we can represent the people.

Change is neede and even though something sounds silly it really isnt.

Just like here in newcastle the stadium if this was taken as public and recreated then solutions even to our children can be introduced which comes down to enviroment so the list goes on, do not take the stadium to be a one off this would be taken australia wide.

take care all

stu

www.tapp.org.au

Hi Alzo,
I think I have had you all wrong, and I think you have me a bit wrong. EG: “Troglodyte utopia” is a bit unfair — I love modern technology and modern medicine. It saved my son’s life in 2004 when he had cancer. I’m not a neo-primitivist, and think Ted Trainer’s Simpler Way has admirable qualities, but I’m a bit more optimistic.

This is why I blog. We can do the math, and know peak oil will arrive somewhere within a ten year band… it’s a little vague because significant oil majors like Saudi Arabia protect their data as a national security issue, we can see the global picture fairly clearly. The world peak in DISCOVERY occurred 40 years ago, and now 54 out of 65 oil producing nations have peaked. It’s really down to Saudi Arabia now, as 3 out of the world’s 4 largest “super-elephant” fields have peaked. Many lifetime oil men are now saying 2005 was the year we peaked.
http://www.energybulletin.net/29162.html

Most seem to group around the next 5 to 10 years.

You said:
“There may be some wars and unrest but society will continue”

This is what concerns me. We can see this coming, and yet are not doing anything.

I just want society to debate this and prepare before the crisis hits. I have kids.

I know of Members of Parliament and Senators who are convinced we are at peak oil but are not politically suicidal enough to come out and admit it. Imagine being a politician and your message is, “Vote for me, I’m the guy telling you that the rest of your life is going to suck!”

As one reporter said: “Thus, the real dilemma of coping peak oil, for a while at least, is really quite simple. If the government should lay out the full ramifications of peaking in hopes of rallying the people to make preparations, the most immediate consequence is likely to be serious economic setback triggered by an unambiguous announcement itself.”
http://tinyurl.com/278tge

Would you at least agree with the need for a REAL international oil audit?

It's difficult to dispute the work that has gone into to demonstrating that over the next 50-100 years, we will require nothing short of a miracle - partly of technological innovation but mostly of political will - to allow us preserve anything like the civilisation we live in today.
I do however believe that in the longer term, there is no physical reason why we can't continue to build an energy-intensive economy, even one that will have potential to grow for quite some time. The reason is that we currently use, at most, a 1000th of the total energy flux from the sun. It's true that given the current rate of technological and infrastructure development in solar power, we're not going to be anywhere near the required level for it to meet a significant portion of projected demand in 50 years time, but assuming the incentives and the programs are in place to rapidly improve the technology and build the infrastructure, there is no physical reason solar power couldn't supply a very substantial fraction of our needs within that time frame. The rest, for the time being, will inevitably be supplied by burning fossil fuels - coal mostly, but I'm also optimistic that with EXISTING technology this can be done with near zero CO2 (or other) emissions. Again, there appear to be no physical restrictions - the current ones are of short-term economic cost. But that should change in the decades ahead as carbon caps etc. are introduced. Yes, it is probably already too late for us to prevent or even significantly mitigate the effects our emissions up to now and in the next decade or so will have on climate change, and yes will be pay dearly for this. OTOH, I also believe that the author's goal of moving to a more sustainable way of living is admirable, for plenty of reasons other than the fact that the physical limitations of our environment will eventually give us no choice.

(continued...)

It seems to me that the most likely future will be
a) a certain and increasing amount of hardship, which will inevitably mostly be borne by the world's poorest nations (and the poorest people within each nation)
b) an initially gradual but increasingly urgent realisation that we will need a very "directed" effort towards reforming the technology and the infrastructure of our current energy industry: think the Apollo project, but 100 times the magnitude and
c) a gradual but increasing squeeze on the energy availability in rich nations, which will force us, by various means, to reduce our energy consumption so step b) has a fighting chance.
The thing is, I know personally that even though I make significant efforts to conserve what I can, I also accept that I could do far more: in fact, I could easily enjoy the same essential standard of living I do now and use HALF the (non-renewable/polluting) energy I do. And if that's true for me, then for those of us that make little or no effect currently to decrease their energy usage, the potential savings are much greater, again, as I said, without a significant sacrifice in standard of living (although of course we will probably have to give up certain expectations, like the ability to drive large, personal motor vehicles where-ever and whenever we want). As for Jevon's Paradox, it really only applies when supply is unbounded, which will NOT be the case in the coming decades. If energy costs us more and more, then will we have to conserve it just to keep paying the same amount we do now: it will not give us additional spare money to pay for additional energy usage. Even if it does give us additional spare money, with the right encouragement and mind-set, there is no reason to assume that will necessary go towards energy-consuming activities or products: it may well go towards paying off our mortgages faster, or investing in lifestyle changes that are LESS energy-intensive.