wizofaus wrote:

"I don't see how it's less naive than your hope! I don't know of one successful 'eco-friendly' housing project that has been funded, planned and built by a government acency."

Well, why don't you check out all the material on the net how the terrible Cuban socialist system handled a suddenreduction of ol imports? (google: Cuba Peak Oil)

You can view a trailer of the award-winning movie "The Power of Community: How Cuba Survived Peak Oil" right now at:

http://www.powerofcommunity.org/cm/index.php

"When the Soviet Union collapsed in 1990, Cuba's economy went into a tailspin. With imports of oil cut by more than half - and food by 80 percent - people were desperate. This film tells of the hardships and struggles as well as the community and creativity of the Cuban people during this difficult time. Cubans share how they transitioned from a highly mechanized, industrial agricultural system to one using organic methods of farming and local, urban gardens. ... Cuba, the only country that has faced such a crisis - the massive reduction of fossil fuels - is an example of options and hope."

If their housing projects were not 'eco-friendly', I don't think they would have coped. In fact, you will find, if you watch the movie, that everything was not centrally planned. The Cubans might not get a say in who runs their national government, but they sure get more say than we do in how their local communities are run.

wizofaus wrote, "like Orwell, I'm rather skeptical how truly open and accountable any government with excessive powers can remain."

Don't you think that's why Thomas Jefferson wote "The price of liberty is eternal vigilance"? There can be no guarantee agsint government more remote form the people if the people relax their vigilance. Nevertheless, we stand much greater chance of having things work properly and in the interests of everyone, if the people through their democratically elected and accoutnable government representatives directly control urban planning.

Hehe Wiz, you can regulate all you want in parts of Africa, its
about survival of the fittest. There is plenty of aid money for
education, but if women are forced to have far more children then
they actually want, they will never get out of the poverty cycle.

In Zimbabwe they had all the farming technology, education,
you name it. Right now to survive the easiest option is to shoot
the wildlife, so thats exactly what is happening. We are
a destructive species because we can be, thats the core of the
problem.

The Catholic Church might not give up its dogma, but population
as part of the GHG issue needs to be highlighted as much as
reducing them, or its a bit like a dog chasing its tail and
we might as well just accept that the "tragedy of the commons"
will apply and not bother. Nature can sort it all out with
a thud one day.

I repeat my point, fussing over Australia not signing Kyoto,
but ignoring 880 million extra people since Kyoto, is nothing
more then a feelgood exercise.

Given the huge constant increase in population, as well as a
few billion more people aiming for a Western lifestyle, either
we'll solve it with new technology, or the planet will simply
spin one day with little but ants and cockroaches onboard,
a bit like it used to

Well Zimbabwe is a rather special case, and a classic example of why you should never give Governments too much power.

Yabby, I fully share your concerns regarding population growth and global warming - but I'm wondering how much you're prepared to accept that our current dependence on fossil fuels and the effect this is having on the planet is very a much a symptom of neoliberalism. Free-market-fundamentalist think-tanks (especially in the US, such as the Cato, Heartland and Marshall institutes) have been the ones trying their hardest to convince governments and businesses that global warming is some sort of enormous scientific or left-wing conspiracy to bring down capitalism.
The free market is not going to solve global warming on its own, indeed quite the opposite. As long as there is a dollar to be made from burning oil, coal or gas, and no immediate penalty, then people will.

James, (sorry, daggett), I mentioned the Cuba agricultural mini-revolution myself in the thread that launched this one. But if Cuba's housing is "eco-friendly" at all, it's because they couldn't afford anything else, not because of any intention to build it that way.

“As long
as there is a dollar to be made from burning oil, coal or gas, and no immediate penalty, then people will.”

They probably will. The point is, if its not one country, its another.
What market economics has done is speed up the whole process, as more
people in poor countries are becoming richer. Compare Chinese energy
use 10 years ago and today, it’s a huge issue, happening far faster then
predicted.

My point is, there is more to it then simply trying to make the West feel
guilty about energy consumption. You have to look at the whole picture.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4208564.stm

According to that article about 1 billion tonnes of CO2 is released
a year, from peatbog fires in Indonesia. More land is being cleared
with rising Indonesian population, which is predicted to rise to
500 million by 2050. To virtually ignore these huge contributors
to the problem and go on some guilt trip, is fairly pointless.

That would be a bit like me saving pennies and feeling proud about
it, whilst my wife blew the family bankbook at the pokies.

Govts can set informed guidelines etc, but I think that novel solutions
will come from market economics, venture capital etc, by virtue of
the sheer scale of money and technology that is now starting to be
thrown at the problem.

I don’t know if you have ever been to or lived in Africa, it’s a very
different place then what many from the West think. To give
you an idea of how different that thinking can be, if you ever
come across a book called “No Mercy” by Redmond O’Hanlon,
about his travels through the Congo, it’s a fantastic read.
It will certainly explain why your notions of Govt regulation,
simply don’t apply in much of Africa.

Who said anything about a guilt trip? I personally can't control what goes on in Indonesia, but I can at least make an effort to minimise my own environmental impact - and I certainly can't think of a good reason *not* to (other than that the fact that it appears to annoy my wife, which is a boat I know others are in!).

I agree with you that free enterprise under market economy conditions will be vital to at least commericalising the technological solutions that will be required to phase out existing GHG-emitting technologies, but it will also depend on government funding for scientific research, stricter government regulation over existing industrial practice, some sort of emissions trading or taxation framework, and government involvement in any required infrastructure changeover (e.g. a national HVDC network). If it was up to those that thought the free market should be left to sort it out entirely on its own with no government involvement at all, burning fossil fuels would remain the most profitable means of generating energy until they genuinely started to run out, and in 100 years time there'd be as much CO2 in the atmosphere as there was 200 million years ago, when the entire planet was 5 or 6 degrees warmer and sea levels 25 metres higher (which would take a few centuries, but would be virtually unstoppable). But as I said, most free-market fundamentalists prefer to pretend it's not even a problem, seeing as it's as a fairly obvious case of drastic market failure.

Africa's problems are varied, but poor government, especially corruption, is surely chief among them. Indeed much of Africa might well do better with no government at all than the useless approximation of it that it has now. I'll keep an eye out for that book, sounds interesting...thanks.

wiz, you might not be on a guilt trip, but alot of people are.
Not only about this topic, but things like organic farming etc.

I know that you say that all the info was there 11 years ago,
but we humans have cried wolf many times, only to find out that
we forgot some variables.

So as a skeptic, I sit back and am careful to not yell out that the
sky is falling, a bit too early.

You might know Ian Plimer, a well known skeptic and geologist
of some repute. He's not so sure as you are about the data.

http://www.news.com.au/business/story/0,23636,21543358-462,00.html

So I've kept a bit of an open mind, to hear what eveyone has to
say.

What I do know from biology however, is that when you overload
ecosystems, eventually they collapse. So our attempts to dominate
nature for the benefit of an ever increasing human population,
could well end with a dramatic thud. Thats why I rattle the cage
for every woman on the planet to have access to family planning.
Its been shown that when its available, they will use it.

Better to do something about it whilst its still voluntary,
then land up like China, being forced to take drastic measures.