The Politics of Climate Change

by Glug Sun Jul 19, 2009 23:18

"You can pour in down your throat....... to solve all the world's problems."

pete, Irish and russian people (amongst others) have been doing that for many years and it's only made even more problems for us. It's perhaps time we all sobered up and took a good hard look at what's coming down the tracks. Personally I favour a more people centric re-organisation of society rather than keeping on with the failed ideology of greed and profit first.

Corporations cannot be trusted to lead us out of this mess that they themselves are largely responsible for. Not even the tax dodging drink corporations. no matter how cool their adverts!!

by Pete. Fri Jul 17, 2009 13:31

"So you are proposing a wordwide abstinence program as a solution to the liquid fuels crisis?"

No..not "abstinance"

Maybe an "Absinthe" program Cian:

http://www.alandia.de/historie/history.htm

Absinthe is the world's strongest legal over-the-counter drink.

It is up to 80% proof (by volume) or 160% proof American proof method.

Your car can run on it.

You can pour in down your throat or into your car petrol tank to solve all the world's problems.

.

by Cian Fri Jul 17, 2009 12:50

So you are proposing a wordwide abstinence program as a solution to the liquid fuels crisis?

by Pete. Fri Jul 17, 2009 11:58

P.S.

"can be fueled by the waste products of alcoholic drink refineries?"

Ethanol is the PRIMARY product of refineries and breweries.

It is what we drink.

That "4% vol" you see on the side of a beer can refers to Ethanol.

As is the "40% vol" you might see on the side of a Vodka bottle.
.

by Pete. Fri Jul 17, 2009 11:28

"OK Pete, so let me understand this correctly - you're proposing that the current fleet of about 850 million vehicles worldwide."

I never said that Cian.

Neither do I believe that for a second.

I merely pointed out that Ethanol is not just the product of hemp.

You can make it out of potatoes and drink it as Poteen.
.

by Cian Fri Jul 17, 2009 10:54

OK Pete, so let me understand this correctly - you're proposing that the current fleet of about 850 million vehicles worldwide can be fueled by the waste products of alcoholic drink refineries?

Let me give you a quote from an ethanol PRODUCERS magazine:

"... the amount of beverage and food waste in the United States will never be enough to surpass the production of a billion gallons of fuel-grade ethanol per year"

Src : http://www.ethanolproducer.com/article.jsp?article_id=3...e=all

9,000 million gallons of fuel grade ethanol were produced in the US in 2008.

Src: http://www.ethanolrfa.org/industry/statistics/

This is your drop-in petroleum replacement?

by Pete. Thu Jul 16, 2009 14:04

"Ford ran the car on ethanol actually, a product of hemp."

Among other things!

Ethanol,also known as "Ethyl Alcohol", is ALSO the product of every brewery and distillery and vinyard in the world.

When diluted with some water,as in Vodka and Beer etc, it is often referred to as "Booze":

Chemistry lesson:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethanol
.

by Cian Thu Jul 16, 2009 13:33

Ford ran the car on ethanol actually, a product of hemp. So what you're proposing is not entirely new, and not particularly interesting either - you're saying that ethanol can replace oil and thereby petroleum as a viable fuel to keep the entire current industrial economy working and growing as it is is now and into the future. You're proposing biofuels basically. George Bush was very keen on this too.
Essentially you're setting up a situation where cars will compete with people for food.... you can work out for yourself how that will play out under capitalism.

In addition, the energy return from ethanol is terrible and could never scale to meet current and estimated demands for petroleum, let alone other oil products....

More reading : http://www.energybulletin.net/node/5062

by Sean Crudden Wed Jul 15, 2009 21:48 sean.crudden at iol dot ie 0879739945

"The Curfew tolls the knell of parting day
The lowing herd winds slowly o’er the lea
The Ploughman homeward plods his weary way
And leaves the world to darkness and to me."

Gray’s Elegy

"For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light."

Matthew. Chapter 11, verse 28

In the early 1840’s, when Ireland supported a population of 8m, people lived close to the soil. Modern spatial planning has gone in a diametrically opposite direction - towards greater urbanization. I am old enough to have a clear recollection of the 1950’s when the horse had not been completely superseded by machines powered by internal combustion engines. Maybe I will live long enough to see the "progress" of the last century totally or, at least, partially reversed? The general point I want to make is that in a climate of economic decline and in a context of high hydrocarbon fuel prices survival in the everyday sense may be better assured in the country rather than in the town.

Then again land settlement patterns have changed over the last half century with increasing mechanization in agriculture. Land holdings are fewer and bigger. Maybe, somehow, that trend will have to be reversed?

Obviously in the light of peak oil it is futile to be investing in road building programs. Train/tram systems need to be devised that, based on renewable electrical energy, will link town and country.

At a general political level free trade has increased the amount of "luxuries" available to children and the population in general compared to the 1950’s when a totally protectionist and restrictive regime was in place. Maybe, here too, it is a case of better back to the future? There is a paradox involved here. Maybe the Lisbon referendum is leading us in the opposite to the optimum direction for the economic conditions which are likely to prevail in the coming decades?

by Engineer Wed Jul 15, 2009 18:01

"Now this is particularly egregious nonsense. Hemp Oil can replace petroleum. Sure.."

It can in fact. Everything petroleum oil can do, hemp can do. Henry Ford built a car and ran it on hemp in the 1940's. The US government during WW2 turned huge mass farms into hemp production. Why? Because it can produce everything (chemicals, synthetics etc) that oil can.

See:

http://www.hempplastic.com/newSite/index.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hemp
http://www.hempbuilding.com/
http://www.ecologicalbuildingsystems.com/products/therm...hemp/

I work with hemp materials and the demand for them in the construction industry is massive at the moment.

by Cian Wed Jul 15, 2009 16:55

Mark, I am not trying to censor anyone for their views, I was just a little surprised at having to field pro-market, pro-capitalist arguments on indymedia. A is quite welcome to share his/her opinions!

There is a certain degree of speculation but it is more a matter of correct analysis of the economic system - either capitalism as it exists today is structurally capable of adapting to the current crises, or it is not. A is arguing that it definetely is. I do think that is transparently obvious at all - in I think historical example has shown capitalism's largely complete failure to deal with global-scale externalities. Hard resource limits are also something that endless growth capitalism has not had to deal with before.

by Cian Wed Jul 15, 2009 16:42

A wrote:
"One must remember that everything oil can do, hemp and other sustainable products can do better"

Now this is particularly egregious nonsense. Hemp Oil can replace petroleum. Sure..

by Mark Wed Jul 15, 2009 16:34

"Given what you say here, I am curious as to what attracts you to a site such as indymedia actually"

There are some of us in here who like to hear different opinions Cian. From what I can gather A is making points about 'system adaptation' whereas you are talking about the irrationality of a system. If you are correct capitalism will plunder the earth into no man's land. If A is correct, the system will adapt. Pure speculation.

by Cian Wed Jul 15, 2009 16:19

Corporations are required by the shareholders to prioritise SHORT-TERM profits. Most shareholders will hold their shares for only about 10-15 months. If they do not see a return within that time - no dice. This means that corporations that take a "big picture" view and start spending on adjusting to post-carbon economies now, will lose out to companies that are complacently ignoring the ongoing crises. The market does not reward forethought in the way that you think it does.

Your smooth adaptation scenario assumes that by the time profits are affected, capitalists will have sufficient time (and energy resources!) to smoothly adapt to the new conditions. I think this is very unlikely. Many commentators have mentioned that we needed to start preparing for energy transition about 10 years before we hit the peak/plateau. Unfortunately, this did not happen, and over the next decade and onwards we will start to see the effects of that.

Capitalism will eventually be forced to TRY to adapt, of course - but your assumption that it will SUCCESFULLY adapt, and return to "business as usual" is I think, highly dubious. Individual market actors have made, and are making decisions that are individually rational, but collectively irrational. That is part of the reason why this financial crisis is so severe.

Like many apologists for capitalism, you blame human nature - "greed" for our economic woes. Well, the different aspects of human nature can be encouraged and rewarded, discouraged and punished, based on what economic and social system is currently in place. Capitalism REWARDS greed, exacerbates inequality, promotes asocial individualism, and short-term profit making, and the results are exactly as you might expect..... With a different system different results might be expected.

You assume that I believe in marxist historical materialism - that capitalism will inevitably collapse and lead unavoidably to communism. You are simply incorrect, I do not believe in historical materialism, and I'd wager quite a lot of marxists do not believe it either. But your unshakeable belief that capitalism can successfully adapt to the challenges it faces, ignores the simple fact that capitalism has never faced problems like this before and has historically been furiously rowing in exactly the opposite direction.

Capitalism is not a globally rational system the way you would love to believe it is. Corporations act for their own rational self-interest (short-term profit). They do not act in order to avoid destruction of the environment, prevent climate change, feed hungry people or anything else of that nature - the entirety of recorded history illustrates this fact. Individual corporate actors, without any motive to co-operate together cannot make globally rational long-term choices.

You completely sidestepped the more important issue of whether there is any basis or motivation for working class and oppressed people's to actually support some kind of sustainable capitalism(if it were possible). Of course there is no basis whatsoever.

Given what you say here, I am curious as to what attracts you to a site such as indymedia actually!

by Pete. Wed Jul 15, 2009 16:04

The transition to a Post-Carbon,Post-Gas, Post-Oil economy has well and truly started.

The "Desertec" association of several European companies,mainly German, has just announced a plan to tranform vast tracts of the Sahara Desert into Solar Energy collectors.

The electricity generated will be fed through high voltage DC interconnectors to Europe.

Details,and CNN video,here:

http://www.desertec.org/en/foundation/

The Americans have already drawn up similar plans for the Nevada and Arizona desert regions:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=a-sola...-plan

The "Oil & Gas Age" will pass into history well within this century.

The "Solar Age" is about to begin.
.

by A Tue Jul 14, 2009 18:13

Re; Cian

Profit motivates capitalists. If their profit margin decreases they will react. Peak oil is a coming reality. Most global multinationals know this. When (and for many it is now) their profit margin is affected they will alter their production techniques. This is not rocket science, and it is not an apology for capitalism. You can have profit, capitalist exchange and markets with renewable energy. Why do you think so many renewable sources of energy have been patented by global multinationals?

There was a time when the left could analyse the strategic interaction of firms and the evolving regulation, production regimes associated with capitalism without being accused of supporting it. Capitalism will adapt to a post carbon economy for functional reasons. If you want to have an emotive rant about anti-capitalism then fair enough But, it wont give you much of an analysis about how markets work, how busienss actors operate or how capital configures labour and resources for its own instrumental purpose. The best way to challenge society is to understand it. The left stopped understanding capitalism the day it started to believe communism was inevitable, or that capitalism will eventually mutate into classless production.

Any brief introduction to the history of capitalism (based upon the startegic interaction of firms) will prove that capitalism is successful as a social system because it can adapt, and re-configurate every challenge, constraint and opportunity into its own self interest. It is within its own interest to phase out the use of fossil fuels. Some industries will go bust in this transition. Some will not. It is likely to be too late to stop the full effects of climate change, but they may find profit in the clean up operation. Commodification can be found practically anywhere. The cause of climate change is human greed, institutionalised in a variety of capitalist forms. Its effects are felt by the entire ecological biosphere. But, the obstacle to overcoming climate change is not profit or market exchange, as the fundamentals of a post carbon economy can be exchanged via the commidity form. This is how the capitalist thinks.

by Cian Tue Jul 14, 2009 12:23

Have a chew on this....
http://www.medialens.org/alerts/07/0313pure_propaganda_...e.php

by Cian Tue Jul 14, 2009 12:20

Whether capitalism can successfully adapt to the crises it has created for itself is one question. Whether we should support its recovery or instead expend our efforts on creating a more democratic, equitable, fairer and freer society, is quite another. For some of us at least, the second question is admittedly easier to answer.

As to your belief that capitalism can adapt to these crises as it has to others before - I can say that the current crises are unlike any that have ever been faced by humanity and that the corporate record on facing up to environmental problems has been woefully inadequate. For such corporate attitudes to change would be a massive about turn in corporate behaviour, without historical precedent. As mentioned by another poster, capitalism's crimes against the environment are a long and growing list. If you want more detail, you could do worse than check out the book "Global Spin" by Sharon Beder:

http://www.herinst.org/sbeder/Books/global.html

Whether or not "Green Capitalism" is even possible - the question for all oppressed and exploited people is - "Even if it were possible, why should anyone support such a thing?"

by A Mon Jul 13, 2009 18:22

Paradise lost wrote:

"Yeah, so you are saying that the guys that lead us into this are the very ones to lead us out"

No, read my post properly and I will respond to some of the issues you raised.

I am simply saying that capitalism is successful because of its capacity to adapt. Fact. It will adapt to a post carbon economy, and its motive for doing so will be to maintain the sustainability of its profit margin. Cogito; the profit motive is not the primary obstacle to tackling climate change. You can commodify non renewables.

by ParadiseLost Mon Jul 13, 2009 17:39

Yeah, so you are saying that the guys that lead us into this are the very ones to lead us out. Bet you supported the bank bailout too. Do people ever learn?
Capitalism only cares about one thing. The bottom line. Corporations worldwide have globalised and cut ecological and social responsibility corners at every opportunity if it meant a few extra shekels for their shareholders. Corporations produce duplication of functionality on a massive scale in their products, resulting in huge levels of waste of non renewable natural resources. They don't give a shit about anything. They have taken paradise and turned it into a rubbish tip.

So lets trust them to save us from ...eh.....THEM.

Forgive me if I don't share your touching trust and naivete on the basis of the "road to Damascus" conversion of the head of interact.(after his many years of profitable exploitation of course). You are talking about corporations that paid people to deny climate change. Corporations that supplied profitable equipment to keep track of the jews in the death camps. Corporations that denied the links between tobacco smoke and cancer. Corporations who run sweatshops in enclaves in third world countries where children work 16+ hour days with their mothers for pennies. Corporations who sell armaments to both sides in every conflict they can find or stir up with the help of their various political puppets. Corporations that tear down rain forests to make room for their toxic fast food creation. Corporations who made among other things such great additions to the planet as ddt and agent orange and are systematically trying to gain ownership and control over the genes in most of our staple food crops with the intention of replacing them with badly tested GM mono cultures purely to make money for themselves. Corporations that think nothing of paying their corrupt friends to kill innocent protesters that get in their way when they carelessly cause widespread pollution in their rush to cheaply exploit natural resources like those in the Niger delta. Need I go on?

I'd rather put my faith in an approach like the creation of very strong social and ecological responsibility legislation on global corporate behaviour with huge penalties (dissolution of corporations and state takeovers of assets for instance) to force change before it is too late (if it isn't already). But then that will never happen because, guess what? they continually buy off politicians and lobby against, block and eviscerate any threatening legislation of that sort. They just continue to play peter against paul in the global ecological and social race to the bottom. The game is totally rigged. There is just nothing there to rein in these out of control global monsters.

Current estimates are that we need 1.3 earths to satisfy the current needs of our population. There are now 6.8 billion humans on the planet all demanding mass duplicated shiny things and endlessly duplicated rubbish they don't need largely because of corporate advertising. All realism has been lost by the human species and our global actions are largely dictated by corporate pressures and political jockeying for power and control over the remaining dwindling natural resources, with no serious plan b at all.

It's easter island all over again. but on a grander scale. Glad I won't be around for all the famine disease, cannibalism and dark age style savagery and religious fundamentalism that will likely be the longer term result of all this short term greed and idiocy after the oil is gone and the current level of foodstuff production becomes completely impossible to sustain.

Fuck capitalism. Because this is where it inevitably leads.

But what did we really expect, because, as the definition goes:
"capitalism is the absurd belief that the most ruthless of men doing the most awful things will bring the most good to the most people"

by A Mon Jul 13, 2009 16:14

Interesting article, but the conclusion that profit, capitalism and competitve markets are the primary obstacle to the resolution of climate change is wrong for the following reasons:

Businesses adapt to competitive pressure. If you examine the politics of climate change in the US you will find an alliance between big business and environmental lobby groups. Big businesses know that unless they change their production techniques their long term sustainability will decrease. Motivated by the principle of profit and market share they want to end reliance upon fossil fuels. There is a growing tension between industries that cannot adapt to an energy source beyond fossil fuels (in alliance with political christian-conservatives motivated by an irrational faith in the earths capacity to continue producing fossil fuels) and those that can.

The pro fossil fuel camp is getting smaller and smaller. In the previous negotiations in Kyoto the US state and US business were opposed in political strategy. The republican government were concerned with an irrational christian-conservative electorate, the business lobby groups were concerned with the reality of climate change and peak oil upon their profits. They championed the idea of 'sustainaility' . It was the state that opposed stringent policies on greenhouse gas emissions, not big business. The politics of climate change is based upon political rational choice. The choice facing business is 'adapt' and succeed or 'continue as normal' and fail.

For example, Interface are the biggest carpet manufacturers in the world. 5 years ago they removed all products (chemicals etc) from their production cycle that were based upon fossil fuels. They now claim to produce 100% bio degradable products. They openly champion an 'ecological' production cycle over a cut and burn 'mechanistic' cycle. The chief executive has claimed that in 50 years anyone using fossil fuels will be criminalised. They, amongst a whole host of other multi nationals are signing up to 'zero-waste' policies of production. They want to eliminate the concept of waste from business and create a paradigm shift in the production process.

Thus, competition, and profit may actually be the motivating force behind tackling climate change not an obstacle. Capitalists are successful because they have a capacity to adapt. Global MNC's know that their profitable future depends upon resolving climate change. One must remember that everything oil can do, hemp and other sustainable products can do better. Capitalists know this better than anyone. Therefore, the obstacle to climate change is whether capitalist production techniques can adapt not capitalism itself. This is not meant to be an apology for capitalism (it created climate chaos) but a rational observation. Green Capitalism is the future, which is why bond shares in these industries are rocketing through the roof.

This alliance between business and environementalism can be witnessed in Ireland. Think about Eddie Hobbs. He is an unapologetic capitalist, but knows that for capitalism to have any future it needs to adapt to a world without fossil fuel. He, and many others are vociferous in their advocacy of a carbon free economy. The rationale behind their advocacy is long term profit. As much as I disagree with them in how to organise an economy and political decision making, I share their reasoning that the strategy capitalists pursue (carbon free production or not) will determine the future of our climate.

by Terence Sat Jul 11, 2009 02:19

This subject area is really quite vast as it overlaps so many others such as Peak Oil, ecological destruction and the ongoing mass-extinction event, population, pollution and others. In some sections, the realization is sinking in that they are all connected and some have even begun to realize that they are not really technical issues as such but cultural issues at their core as one ulitimately has to look in the context in which these problems arose.

The so-called science of economics has done a lot of harm, but it first should be recalled that economics grew out of political philosphy and did not claim to be a science. It was only during the industrial revolution when the hard sciences of physics and engineering during which the first railways were built, the telegraph, industrial machinery on a large scale and very large structures like ships and bridges, all of which radically transformed the world that these people began to feel like the masters of the universe. It was not surprising then that others wanted a piece of the action and sticking the label of science on economics was the ticket. Nevertheless much of economics remains just political ideology. Even Adam Smiths writings and thoughts have been totally misrepresented by neo-liberalists and other capitalists. The main flaw though with economics and models of the economy is that they never took account of the natural world and the resources and services it provides. Nor is there any recognition that it can be damaged, that it is finite and some things can not be subsituted. Economics has become so distored in its world view that these people think the environment is a sub-component of the economy and not the other way around. To this day the vast majority of economists seem incapable of comprehending the above facts. Indeed they have become so enthralled by money that they seem to forget it is merely a token, and it is energy not money that drives our cars, powers our homes etc etc. In terms of the environment, they think the values they put on species and ecosystems are okay. They are just so detached from reality it is unbelievable. The trouble is that this perverse way of seeing the world has infected many.

It should be added that much of the Marxist / Left thinking for many years took a similar line and they saw industrialisation of society as the way forward. In the former USSR, no account was taken of the environment and it has taken a long time for the notion of the value of the Earth and centrality of the environment to begin to penetrate all the different flavours of the Left. Incidently much of the Left rejected the famous Limts to Growth study of the early 1970s because it seemed in their eyes to preclude their ideal of equalitarian society, because they had invested so much in suggesting it was capitalists who created the 'false' notion of limits. Besides there was the danger if the capitalists used up all the limited resources before the revolution, clearly there would be no cake left as it were for this ideal future. Ergo, then reject the Limits to Growth study.

Very much tied into the whole debate if it could be called that which takes place in the media, is the issue of denial. As mentioned above, the Right in general and Capitalists of all hues do not want to admit there are (physical and environmental) limits, so they deny them. Admitting there are limits would strike a blow at the central propaganda ideal of capitalists, which is we must have never ending growth and while the rich may get richer, if you wait just a while growth will lift all people out of poverty. Because of the fantastic growth in the economy and in technology over the last 150 years, and it has certainly delivered for Europeans, the USA, Japan and a few other countries, then this seems reasonable to the middle classes of all these countries who afterall to the Right and Capitalists are the only people that matter. All the rest can be bombed, subdued, or as has happened end up in vast slums because of IMF so called structural reforms from the 1980s and 1990s.

Alongside the propaganda from the Right and Capitalists, the technological wonders of the last 150 years has created a new religion. This religion is the belief in ever lasting progress. It is only in the last few years that I have realized both how strong and widespread it is. People simply do not want to belief otherwise and simply will not accept. Thus they make a very fertile ground for corporate propaganda that denies all forms of environmental damage. To understand this new religion of faith in progress, one has to consider for much of human history progress would have been slow and life hard. In centuries past, religion promised heaven to those after they died, although they had to work hard to get there. Then, and this religion really only applies to those populations whose lives improved, things got better and the wonders that appeared like railways, telegraph, mass-travel (shipping), radio, TV, electricity, commerical airlines, telephones and most recently computers, mobile phones, ipods and of course the Internet, then it is no wonder in relation to those at the end of the middle ages or so, one could say heaven on Earth has arrived because all these things are miracles to even just our grandparents and their parents. For us all the earlier stuff is taken for granted, but most people still marvel at mobiles phones the Internet.
So what has happened is that offical religion has been discredited and failed to deliver. Science on the other hand has delivered and even though most people may not be very interested or even understand science, they know it is connected with this progress thing. And for this same period science has constantly promised and generally delivered.

What is not so obvious is that the discovery of coal, and then oil both of which were vast stores of cheap and most importantly one-time occurences of energy aided this whole process. They were the levers that allowed the minerals to be extracted, the mechanism to manufacture vasts amounts of fertilizer and pesticides, increasing the food supply and allowed the population to soar. While Marx might talk about profit being the surplus value of labour, all of this progress was able to happen on the surplus of the cheap and easily available energy that enabled the huge store of resources both mineral and biological (e.g. timber, fish, crops) to be extracted from the Earth.

There are limits to the Earth (its round after all) and to the ecosystems and as humanity has now swelled to fill most of it AND given we have just passed Peak Oil, our cheap energy is not as freely available but nor are all the other resources as we have used the best of everything that you can think of.

It is this collision with limits and the past progress of science and technology and of course the agendas of Capitalists and the total ignorance of economists that brings us to this very spot today and allows us to see more clearly where everyone stands.

So it is perhaps clearer now why so many cling to the vain hopes that somehow climate warming is not happening, despite the fact that the annual summer melt of the Arctic Ocean in 2007 and 2008 increased by a huge jump reaching new records and signal we have entered postive feedback as the albedo over a huge area is no longer highly reflective from the white ice but now the black of the sea for a longer time each year over a much bigger area. Albedo is a key parameter.

To some extent it explains why so few are out marching for reductions in CO-2 and other greenhouse gases. And in the politics while on the one hand government leaders can be giving speeches about global warming, at the very same time, their police forces are used to baton and generally criminalise in the public's mind these protesters which is exactly what happened last year at the UK Climate Camp. Same in other countries too. It should be quite clear that all govt talk and speeches are simply greenwash. Deep down they don't really grasp the true magnitude of the problem or if they do it is the end of the political career.

So for that body of the public and political establishment that recognizes, yes, perhaps there is some kind of problem out there, it is imperative to them, given the history of the last 150 years, to play down the severity and the extent of the problem. This way they inherently know, they won't rock the boat too much, because the huge elephant in the room is of course that which Chekov alluded to above, which is the entire structure of our political and economic system. By not thinking too much, it also stops them going mad.

Yet I would bet that most people do realize the following but it causes such a disturbance of thought that they ignore it and that is. If as is the case, in say the last 80 years, the population has soared, we have used up the most accessible half of oil, all the best coal, damaged a fair amount of farmland, more or less destroyed the world fisheries, and same for the forests, then even if there was to be a symmetrical reduction on the other side of this slope, there can't be, because we are saddled with a huge population and the associated huge appetite for resources. So the system from now on (since we have entered post Peak Oil) has to deliver vast resources which are now far harder to get, require more energy to extract and refine and no matter what way you measure it, ultimately costs more. In simpler terms during the first half we have been dishing out from the top of the barrel (cream on top etc) and now for the second half its going to be a case of scraping madly at all the poor quality gunk in the lower half. Something has got to give.

At the same time people are aware that 20% of the world's population are using 80% of the resources. If on the other hand, just 1% or 2% were to remain at the life style of the current 20%, then that would make the resource problem easier on the way down. The only way you that those 1% or 2% can do that is to reduce democracy and reduce it significantly. For everyone else they have to wake up to the size of the problem, take control and even with a total and utter reogranisation of society to serve the many rather than for profit for the few, the problems are still truly massive. To even get to there is going to elicit massive violence and repression from the (state) forces that are ulimately in place to serve the top few. These people have the entire intelligence, police, military and most importantly media at their disposal. Those they are opposing, the people, are in the main isolated, misinformed, vunerable, disorganised and inflitrated and easily manipulated and or distracted via the media and other opinion shapers and the general cult of celebrity. Really there is no match. The globalisation movement was dealth with quite easily.

by Pete Fri Jul 10, 2009 22:46

"Depressingly, it appears that humanity may walk into the environmental catastrophe forewarned and with eyes open."

True.

But.

No bother..Humanity is clever.

Necesssity is NOT the mother of invention............

"DESPERATION" is the REAL mother of invention.

.

by hot-tub-harry Fri Jul 10, 2009 21:14

Watch the vid by MArtin Durkin..'The Great Global Warming Swindle'....
If AlGore says its true....well then....ill have to think about it....twice.....