Yet another slant on the denial caper.So we can't stop economic growth and I suppose we can't stop the corollary,population growth, either.

Well,Richard,if Homo Saps can't do it then Nature will do it for us.

You just laze back there in Bali,old son,and enjoy the ride.

The megatons of coal and oil we have burned produce CO2, which is acidifying the oceans and trapping heat.
Polar ice and tundra is melting.
Climate change is just as much a fact as evolution and the Solar centric theory.
Here's a report about the warming and cooling of Antarctica.
http://tinyurl.com/yerdtbt

“Julia Gillard …said a very sensible thing last weekend: this is not about climate change or carbon reduction - it’s about the future.”

If only all those concerned could steer this whole climate change thing into a genuine debate about our future, with the central premise being the need to live sustainably, instead of being hung up on one aspect of sustainability – fossil fuels versus renewable energy, while other huge aspects are left alone, not least the crazy continuous expansion paradigm.

“…let’s take a moment to reflect on some essential points:”

“IT is immaterial in a very real sense whether human agency has caused any of the current cycle of global warming.”

What?!

“But it is essential is that we stop poisoning ourselves with increasingly avoidable noxious atmospheric emissions into the atmosphere as soon as possible and turn to clean energy options that science is developing.”

Of course it is essential to turn to clean renewable energy, first and foremost because of AGW, or the probability of AGW and the sensibility of erring on the side of caution!

“EARTH’S climate is a dynamic entity, far beyond the present capacity of humans to control or even influence in more than a minor, localised way…”

Oh balls! Just look at the extraordinary rate of release of CO2 from fossil fuels, compared to the volume of the global atmosphere, the resultant increase in CO2 concentration, the massive changes to polar ice sheets and glaciers, etc.

“WE cannot stop economic advance.”

Oh balls again! Developing countries will continue to strive to advance. But we could address population growth and strive for steady-state economies and for sustainability if we put our minds to it, so that we won’t have to pursue endless economic growth.

“THE developed world must fully recognise…”

That the real issues as well as AGW are population growth, the absurd endless economic expansion paradigm and various other grossly unsustainable practices, and that these things need to be dealt with with the same or greater urgency as climate change.

I hear many posters raising the issue of sustainable growth/populations. Can anyone tell me how it would be possible to prevent economic growth and/or population growth without draconian measures? I wonder if this line of thought is shared solely by people from older generations, and if so, it doesn't really matter what you think does it?

A wise man once said "They got the guns, but we got the numbers"

well said Richard. Take the Hot Air [B/S] and political grand standing out of the debate and put a sustainable future in the centre of the debate and find out just how ingenious homo sappian is when there is a NEED and not someones wish list for a free ride.

Much ado about nothing from Richard Laidlaw. Two pages to say very little about anything - certainly nothing new and nothing helpful: a few vague remarks about 'embracing change', and and a ridiculous comment that population and economical growth cannot be halted.

Stezza,
No problem about stopping growth.
Just stop increasing the amount of energy available.
Growth is dependant on energy and as oil production, it now seems
fairly certain stopped increasing last year in July that is it.
We may crank it back up a bit to cover the fall due to the poor
economic conditions, but that won't take long to be used up.

As the depletion sets in at about 2% per year, increasing at a rate
no one has put a number on yet we will increasingly be more interested
in transport energy needs than global warming.
The CO2 production fill fall faster than any ETS could cause.

The climate modellers didn't put oil depletion into the climate
models so it doesn'y show in their results. They only put increasing
oil consumption in as business as usual scenario input.

GIGO !

There is not the slightest reason or evidence to think that sustainability is more achievable by way of central economic planning, than by way of prices.

"Just stop increasing the amount of energy available."

Ok, so who is going to stop us (i.e. the people who want more energy)? And how?

Solutions seem simple if you oversimplify the problem.

People probably calculated that once horses reached a certain population transport and food production would peak and we would all be stuffed.

Stezza: "People probably calculated that once horses reached a certain population transport and food production would peak and we would all be stuffed."

I do remember that calculation, actually. The point was made that modern cities would not be possible with horses, as we would all be buried in horse poo. If you do the calculation averaged distance travelled versus poo produced, buried is entirely accurate depiction of what would happen.

Stezza: "Can anyone tell me how it would be possible to prevent ... population growth without draconian measures?
Stezza: "Solutions seem simple if you oversimplify the problem."

The solution for us in Australian is simple regardless. We just reduce immigration. It is not so simple for the rest of the world of course.

Stezza: "Ok, so who is going to stop us (i.e. the people who want more energy)? And how?"

I think Bazz would argue "who" is gaia and "how" is let the oil wells run dry. You will I presume argue their are alternatives (like coal to liquids), which is true. But CTL has 2.5 times the CO2 footprint. So then it becomes a question of whether this matters. The people we pay to predict whether things like this matter say it will. Others say it doesn't. I am not going to enter into that debate here, but suffices to say the people that believe it really, really does matter are another "who".

Stezza: A wise man once said "They got the guns, but we got the numbers"

Yes, well I wonder what our Aboriginals, the Aztecs, the American Indians would feel think about that? Indeed I wonder what you think of it too. We have nations to the north of us with populations in excess of 1 billion, a number we can never hope to come close to. Me, I prefer to have lots of excess capacity around so we can afford lots of big guns.

Stezza said;
Ok, so who is going to stop us (i.e. the people who want more energy)?
And how?

In a word geology !

Yes as Rstuart said CTL in various forms will produce some but the
scaling is horrendous. All that would do is bring peak coal earlier.

I have to disagree that what we do and don't do makes no difference to the Earth's climate; every institution that studies climate says otherwise. Sure it's hard and costly to change to low emissions energy but it doesn't take computer modelling to know that it'll be a lot harder and costly to have failed to do so.

Time to give up the excuses for continuing 'development' models that entrench further increases in emissions and pretending that science's warnings of huge future impacts can be ignored; there'll be no defaulting on those repayments as they come due.

That the precise details of a crash can't be known doesn't mean the crash won't happen or that hitting the accelerator won't make it worse. Prosperity based on ignoring the future costs and consequences is a bubble that's going to burst and the longer we put off paying the price for development that is sustainable the costlier it will get.

Welcome to the beginning of the 'new line' on global hysteria-mongering. Having failed with AGW and failed with CO2-induced 'climate change', the new line will be: "It doesn't matter how it's happening, we have to DO something." Of course, the thing we have to do will be exactly the same: hand over large amounts of power and money to our masters so that they can make benevolent decisions on our behalf.

There are lots of reasons for reducing our dependence on oil: for one thing, it might keep us out of wars in the middle east, and for another it means we can't be held to ransom by corrupt theocracies. But let's do it for rational reasons with our eyes wide open, not in a mass apocalyptic panic.

Hear Hear John J .

I'm much more optimistic, humans have an amazing ability to adapt, create and innovate, and while many people have the ability to look forward and see limitations, they fail to see the potential we have as a species. Just think, if you believe we can influence the world detrimentally, then we also have the power to change it for the better.

Now try this at home. Tell your children that they are not allowed to have more than one child each, and that they must have a lower quality of life that you have lived. I think you will find that neither yourself, the government, or geology will be able prevent them from being smarter, wealthier and happier than the previous generation. This is the way it always has been and always will be.

Stazza: "I think you will find that neither yourself, the government, or geology will be able prevent them from being smarter, wealthier and happier than the previous generation. This is the way it always has been and always will be."

Firstly it hasn't always been that way. 50% of our population was wiped out by the black death, for instance. There was mass starvation during the "little ice age" or "medieval cooling", although despite its name this mostly effected Europe. Even in my life time, pictures of a country being "thinned" by starvation is not exactly unheard of. So in fact, unless you choose a short time scale (a few 100 years) it hasn't always been that way, quite the reverse - it has never been uniformly that way.

I can see you might think it could have been, for the last 200 years or so things have gotten better and better. In fact we have had exponential growth, and are continuing to grow exponentially. I assume you know that can only end one way, because elsewhere you said you are a scientist, and pointed out that the statement "During most of the history of life, species have become extinct at a slow, fairly regular pace" was "complete crap". And indeed, it was. When there are positive feedback loops nothing happens at a slow, regular pace. Instead we use terms like the "Cambrian Explosion" and "mass-extinction" to describe what happens.

And finally, nobody is asking your children not to have children. As I said, in Australian we just have to reduce immigration. But even in countries that don't have that option, it turns out womens education, freely available contraception and (surprisingly) our western soaps do a much better job of population control than a China style "you shall not have children" mandate. Just ask Iran. http://www.earth-policy.org/index.php?/plan_b_updates/2001/update4ss

Stezza said:
>I think you will find that neither yourself, the government, or
>geology will be able prevent them from being smarter, wealthier and
>happier than the previous generation. This is the way it always has
>been and always will be.

Why ?
There is no reason to believe it will always be as it is now.
Less energy will change everything we do, from the way we work to the
work we actually do. There will be many more farmers than now.
The Romans and every civilisation before and since though they were
there forever.

There is plenty of precedent to disbelieve your belief that
what is there today will be there tomorrow.

I understand what you are saying rstuart and bazz, however regardless of these disasters the human species has progressed and prospered. I simply just don't believe that we should look to the future and see doom and gloom.

On another note, if my posts seem rude (such as "complete crap") it is probably because I'm writing quickly between doing work and don't really read my posts before uploading. I really am a nice guy :)

Stezza

wonderfully positive outlook. I admire you. You give balance to all the gloom and doom merchants who are predicting our demise.

I too think we and our kids are smart enough to handle whats coming ...without the authoritarian governments most dimwits think are going to solve our problems.

I think industry and econimics will determine our future. Like you I think they will make allowances for what people like you and I want and they will produce that. If that involves cars with nil emissions or industry that operates without emissions then that is what industry and particularly energy industries will produce.

All government will ever do is produce some scheme that raises taxes and doesn't address the real issues. ie a reduction in the use of fossil fuels.

I love positve people like you.