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...