Dear bull, take a moment to consider the incredible contradiction you have just presented;

You introduced this line of discussion with presumably heartfelt concern about the state of energy consumption and provision in Australia….but you are apparently completely averse to the notion of even reducing the rate of increase in consumption, let alone stabilising it.

That’s a hell of a contradiction!!

You are only concerned with buying time before we can develop ‘better’ energy-supply mechanisms.

You seem resigned to the fact that “Australia’s expected energy demands are expected to more than double in the next 10-15 years”, and you seem only to be concerned about how we can keep up energy supply to match this demand.

Not a thought of striving to slow that rate of increase, which of course is mainly driven by rapid population growth.

Doubling the entire energy consumption in just 15 years. Now that’s one hell of a rapid rate of increase. What happens after that? Another doubling in the next 15 years? That would be a four-fold increase in 30 years and an eight-fold increase in 45 years!

Of course our energy consumption is not going to increase at anything like that rate, but it WILL keep rapidly increasing with no end in sight under the current growth-at-all-costs regime………until we come up against some very painful barrier. And we have people like thebull who seem to think that that is just fine!!

People who are concerned only with facilitating this rapid increase in energy consumption need to be condemned for their one-eyed and completely antisustainability-oriented efforts. For goodness sake, I implore them to look at the subject in a holistic manner!

.
“Ludwig, suggests that we start bumping people off…”

May I suggest that you be very careful. You know full well that I have neither suggested nor alluded to any such thing. My posts are there for everyone to read and to see how you have misrepresented me. Thebull, statements like this will only serve to badly damage your credibility.

Without a population growth fixation, governments would obviate the need to spend tens of billions of dollars on infrastructure. This could allow more research funding. Similarly, individuals, no longer financially crippled by the impact of high population growth, might have more disposable income to take their own action.

It is more about the reality than a contradiction. If we are not going to actively reduce global populations, how do we go about dramatically reducing consumption? I assume you are well aware of the current increase rate of prosperity in India, China, most of Asia is also in rapid growth, add that to the increase in prosperity of Russia, it is not about what would be ideal, it is reality that our planets population is becoming more wealthy, every year. With that wealth they all want cars, air-conditioning and refrigeration etc.
You can try telling India and China that they can’t have a 1st World standard of living for the billions of their people, because we stuffed up, it wont get far. We need solutions, not idealism.
So, how does a World go about “addressing the absurdity of the continuous growth paradigm” or “stopping population growth fixation of Governments”. What is the current growth-at-all-costs regime, I’m unaware of that?
Ludwig, your comments are idealistic, they may even be correct, the World may well be a better place, if the World had less people in it, less technology, less air-conditioning, less cars, less powered up cities, but that is not a reality, it is just a dream of an idealistic place or time.
Right or wrong, for better or worse, it is not going to happen any time soon, that is the reality, not a contradiction. So how do we go about dramatically reducing consumption?
The simplicity in saying the answer is in stopping growth, is not a reality that is likely to catch on any time soon.
Looks like we will go Nuclear, just because we can, and no one has a better answer other than stop using the light switch so often.
Maybe in time we will have the ability in every household to generate our own electrical power. However, that is still a long time off in the future, what will we do in the mean time?

Ludwig

"But with a rapidly increasing number of ‘per-capitas’, this is not going to reduce overall energy consumption and it is not going to be the answer to our energy issues."

1) It's about carbon emissions, not energy consumption

2) It depends on how quickly you reduce emissions. The population issue has a much longer time span involved. We will solve this long before we make a significant dent in the population.

"ONLY SERVE TO MAKE THE SITUATION WORSE…..

because they will effectively facilitate continued rapid population growth."

I fail to see the logic here. Unless you think rampant global warming is a good thing because it will cut down the population. See the IPAT equation here:

http://www.ozpolitic.com/population-sustainability.html#IPAT

Solving global warming within one generation will not necessarily lead to continued economic growth - most econonmists predict a slight decline in economic growth. So that's two of the factors - technology and affluence - working in your favour. Solving global warming is hardly going to cause the population to go up.

"And that is exactly what will happen for a long as our economic system and society is based on this absurd perception that continuous growth is necessary. "

It isn't based on that perception at all.

"I could even argue that the best thing for us all to do is to be profligate with our energy usage, so that the real crunch comes sooner rather than later,"

If that did happen, things could get much worse, very quickly.

"So, yes, let’s have green taxes, but ONLY as part of a holistic approach that includes an end to the continuous growth paradigm. "

Well, that much I agree with. You are giving me mixed messages I think.

bull:

"Energy conservation or efficiency is one thing but suggesting we just use less electricity, will not cut it, but by all means please give it go. "

That is not what I am suggesting. I am suggesting that we do that first, given that it is easiest. Whatever outcome you think is suitable, a green tax shift is the best way to achieve it.

"And no I will not be giving up the car just because petrol goes to $5 a litre"

Neither will I. But I would make more of an effort to save fuel, and buy a more efficent car next time.

"Australia’s expected energy demands are expected to more than double in the next 10-15 years."

It could also halve under a green tax shift.

freediver: Your idea of a 'Green Tax' shift, may be worth a go, but most likely will only impact on the poor the most, most people will simply pay the bill and complain that the Gov is ripping them off, much like today with petrol tax etc. The poor and old will be left in the cold, the rest of us will charge more for our services and move on.
I don't think it is so easy to reduce consumption without raising the cost through the roof, via taxes or other means, even then I can't see that making much of an impact. Does not seem to work for Petrol consumption, I still use the car about the same as 5 - 10 years ago, although my car is more economical these days I will admit. Aust's energy demand will continue to increase, and far outstrip the population ratio.
As individuals we will use more power! Throughout the planet a huge amount more.
The goal needs to be some form of electrical power supply attached to every house, but as I said that is a long time off.
In the mean time, we need a reasonably clear energy source well before then.