The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > We can't go on living like this > Comments

We can't go on living like this : Comments

By Ted Trainer, published 20/4/2007

We say we want to save the environment, have peace, and eliminate poverty. And we do - but only until we see what this requires.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 8
  7. 9
  8. 10
  9. Page 11
  10. All
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
Posted by tapp, Friday, 27 April 2007 10:50:53 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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?
Posted by Eclipse Now, Friday, 27 April 2007 8:33:33 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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.
Posted by wizofaus, Wednesday, 2 May 2007 10:44:30 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
(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.
Posted by wizofaus, Wednesday, 2 May 2007 10:46:14 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 8
  7. 9
  8. 10
  9. Page 11
  10. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy