Of course the Make Poverty History campaign is naïve, it has been manipulate by the likes of Blair, and Bob and Bono have spent far to much time sucking up to the G8, praising them for piddlingly insignificant gestures to global justice.

But this does not mean that we can’t all live a life with good water, food, housing, cloths, transport, health, education and jobs that pay well with sociable hours.

Trying thinking outside the box constructed by the corporate media, whose only interest is in maintaining the status quo of the capitalist system and preserving the privileges of the few at the expense of the many.

The war for the world’s rapidly dwindling resources is already underway in Afghanistan and Iraq to name but two countries, as is the war against those at home who dare to proclaim another world is possible with attacks on civil liberties and freedom of expression.

You have a choice you can look after number one, accept defeat, and lock yourself away with your friends and family and somehow hope that the storm passes over you, or you can take a stand and fight for a better world.

'Thinking outside the box' ( good I hate that management speak :- ) ) perhaps should involve thinking about existence and working up form that; Good jobs - what does this mean? The concept of work is differnet form the concept of jobs. there are many 'jobs' in the world that are uneccesary - the danger is to look at solutions in a capitalist 'career' orientated sense.
What are most people working for? This depends again on the concept and where you happen to have been born/thrown in the world. This pah does take us to food, land, shelter, enjoyment i.e letting looose the imagination and creativity that is and has been repressed by authoritarian capitalism ( and authoritarian communism i.e. state caitalism and dictatorship).

Peopel work there socks off in shite jobs to buy production line ( and ultimatley throwaway )material goods ( without thinking of the joy of DIY. hence again I refer to Argetina and the deposed factory boss that was perpelexed by the ex factory workers making beautiful and quality clothes that they could never do when working for the capitalist economy - a question of time and interest - making clothes for yourself and friends.

Time is the other big issue. ( this obviously involve death and attitudes to out innevitable deaths ). Capitalism buys time for the rich to do what....Discuss

Liberal reformist options will not work and will only make the majority of the planet sadder.

Question... How much do we want to change the world for ourselves, our children, etc.

Aid or self sustainability.

Wants or Needs?

Q. Is survival enough? A. Ask the slave in the call centre

etc etc. viva la revolution

Well I know that sounds provocative. But if you're going to LET someone exploit you, then what can you expect.

People have to stop letting other people tell them what to do.

You really think you're that helpless?

You really think your boss is that powerful?

His power only exists because people believe it does.

How did such a small number of people manage to gain so much power over such a large number of people?

Anyone taking a job in a call centre knows it's going to be a shit job.
Why work in a call centre?
Why work for someone else at all?

People are capable of so much more than they might realise. No-one has to be confined to a call centre.

Richard

>It is necessary only for the good to do nothing for evil to triumph?

Well good question, difficult to answer.

How would the good triumph over evil? Presumably by stooping to the same level of devious activity. How else?

Add to this the fact that the evil have all the weapons! How do you intend to stand and fight them? Don't talk to me about David and Goliath. If you die fighting who will still be here with a good heart?

>But this does not mean that we can’t all live a life with good water,
>food, housing, cloths, transport, health, education and jobs that pay well
>with sociable hours.

Well I have to disagree. I think that for the entire world to have food, housing, cloths, transport, health and education would need more resources than this planet has right now. That's not even taking into account how many more poeple there will be in 20 years.

>You have a choice you can look after number one, accept defeat, and lock
>yourself away with your friends and family and somehow hope that the storm
>passes over you, or you can take a stand and fight for a better world.

1. I don't think fighting will make a better world.
2. I suggest moving away from the storm to somewhere sustainable and peaceful.
3. If everybody else did the same we WOULD be living in a better world.

A better world is a subjective thing anyway, are you going to deny people the wish to drive fast cars if they want? If you do then you become the new bad guy. Even if you belive it's right for the planet. Does the planet have more rights than a human being? Do we own the planet or does the planet own us?

Sorry i'm going off on one a bit now..... Moving on.

----------------------------------------------------

some notes and questions

>Question... How much do we want to change the world for ourselves, our
>children, etc.

Hmmm do we have the right to CHANGE the world when what is an ideal world is entirely a subjective thing?

If you do start changing it then you become the same as the people who are governing and changing it now.

It is granted that you surely have VERY different values than the current leaders, but, if you find yourself in control and people want fast cars and to burn energy what will you say or do? If you say no to them do you not become a dictator?

I will not be controled nor will I be a leader

------------------------------------------------------

>The slaves in the call centres have only themselves to blame

Well yes and no.

>But if you're going to LET someone exploit you, then what can you expect.

well we in the west can afford to allow ourselves be exploited

>People have to stop letting other people tell them what to do.

well yes unless you don't mind being told what to do

>You really think you're that helpless?

I doubt it. Probably just waiting for a better day to come rather that finding it (more like lazyness ingrained into us just enough to not be too bothered while still working and paying taxes).

>How did such a small number of people manage to gain so much power over
>such a large number of people?

quite easily really, by promising material wealth and appealing to peoples greed.

>People are capable of so much more than they might realise. No-one has to
>be confined to a call centre.

Yes Yes Yes. I agree.

>>Well I have to disagree. I think that for the entire world to have food, housing, cloths, transport, health and education would need more resources than this planet has right now. That's not even taking into account how many more poeple there will be in 20 years.<<

There's enough food ALREADY being produced to feed everyone in the world. But not everyone has access to this food. So some of it is being eaten by fat people and some of it is being thrown away. The problem is not with production but with distribution.

Clothes?? What do you need clothes for???

housing? well if everyone wants a mansion then that's not possible, but a modest little abode, I don't see why that would be so impossible...

for everyone to have adequate health care would mean we'd need to train more nurses and doctors, and stop all this intellectual property nonsense. Does that need more resources? NO. Does it need more political will? Blatantly. That's where we come in.

Also, we need decentralised medicine. Medical knowledge is largely reserved for doctors. People need to be taught more about how to look after themselves, so that doctors can be used more efficiently. This doesn't mean people need a medical university degree type thing, it just means basic knowledge of the the way our bodies work, and the benefits of nutrition and exercise should be taught to people so that people have more understanding for themselves and don't have to rely on mysterious secret expert knowledge of medical practioners.

For everyone to have access to education, doesn't need more resources. It just needs to free up government resources from their debts to the IMF and World Bank, from their expenditure on weapons, and from the 'race to the bottom' in which taxes are continually lowered to attract the 'investment' of foreign business.

Or people could take matters into their own hands and organise education for themselves. If the government won't do it then do it yourself.


And NO we don't have to descend to levels of deviousness of the bad guys. Is that what Gandhi did? The only problem with his tactics was that they stopped when India got its independence. Non-violent civil disobedience should be used against every conceivable act of aggression be it military or economic.


Also, you think that it's wrong to protect that planet if that's not what most people want? Well sure it's better to do things by concensus, that's what I'd try to do. But ultimately if that doesn't work, then what would you prefer? If the choice is between the planet dying and us dying with it, or ceasing to kill the planet and therefore allowing the human race (and other species) to live another day, what would you choose? Democracy's no use once we've all been wiped out.

Jools, we can give up now or we can actually try to do something about the state of the world. If you want to give up then you do that but don't think you're going to persuade us to sit at home and watch tv.

>There's enough food ALREADY being produced to feed everyone in the world. But not everyone >has access to this food. So some of it is being eaten by fat people and some of it is being thrown >away. The problem is not with production but with distribution.

Yes well that IS a problem isn't it. Distibution requires oil! We don't have enough left. Feed evryone in the world and you just compound the problem of not enough resources.

>Clothes?? What do you need clothes for???

err to keep warm. Would you rather use central heating?

>housing? well if everyone wants a mansion then that's not possible, but a modest little abode, I >don't see why that would be so impossible...

well that's because you don't want to see the possibility of your argument being flawed.

>Does it need more political will? Blatantly. That's where we come in.

Who is we? The green party? The lib dems? A bunch of people who say hey man don't worry it'll be alright we'll work it out. Hmmm your reponse is hardly going to inspire confidence in middle england.

>If the government won't do it then do it yourself.

You keep talking about goverment but I don't see how your ideas translate into any kind of goverment.

>And NO we don't have to descend to levels of deviousness of the bad guys. Is that what Gandhi >did? The only problem with his tactics was >that they stopped when India got its independence. >Non-violent civil disobedience should be used against every conceivable act of aggression be it >military or economic.

OK so we assume that you personally are ready to die for your ideas like so many indians did. Then no more you, and no more of your good kind hearted (if perhaps nieve) ideas. Will that be of benifit to the future world?

Besides that, this situation is a lot different than that of India and forced colonial rule. Don't forget that most people voted to be ruled as we are.

>If the choice is between the planet dying and us dying with it, or ceasing to kill the planet and >therefore allowing the human race (and other species) to live another day, what would you >choose?

Trying to stop people killing the planet would be like you by yourself trying to stop a stampeed of elphants. Just run, get out the way and make sure you survive to make a better future.

>Democracy's no use once we've all been wiped out.

We do not have democracy untill we have proportional representation. If we had proportional representation I think people in our boat would lose against your average citizen who dosn't want to go back to living in the forest.

Don't get me wrong I could handle the forest life but how many others do you think could or would (talking about the western developed world that is)?

Lots of people (3rd world etc) live without basic ameanities already and THEY are the ones who will win when our unsustainable civilisation goes down.

>Jools, we can give up now or we can actually try to do something about the state of the world. If >you want to give up then you do that but don't think you're going to persuade us to sit at home >and watch tv.

Dude i'm not talking about giving up! I'm talking about changing direction a little with the same ends. I presume you are still ingrained in the system and supporting it while pretending to fight it.

I have not owned a TV for the last 4 years. Do you have a TV?
Hmmm Whatever.... Dosn't that saying come from a somewhat popular TV talkshow....

>>Yes well that IS a problem isn't it. Distibution requires oil! We don't have enough left. Feed evryone in the world and you just compound the problem of not enough resources.

NO, the problem isn't that we don't have the energy to move the food around. The problem is that it's not being distributed FAIRLY. It's a lack of fairness not a lack of energy.

ALL the countries where people are starving are exporting more food than they import. They shouldn't be exporting it at all (especially not at such low prices) when it should be used to feed it's own people.

Don't tell me we don't have enough energy to send food flying all round the world.

Britain exports butter to Newzealand. Newzealand simultaneously exports butter to Britain.

The problem is that the economy is geared towards serving the needs of the rich. Or the greed of the rich more like. There's enough to go round for everyone.

Sure the oil will run out one day, but we've got to wean ourselves off oil before that happens anyway if we don't want to destroy the planet. Put solar panels on every roof. Use wind power and wave power. There's no reason why we need to rely on oil.

Back on the issue of food. Ireland was exporting grain during the potato famine. Hungry people tried to steal the grain so that they wouldn't starve to death. They were prevented from doing this by the british army.

This is effectively the situation throughout much of the world. When I said distribution, I meant sharing stuff out fairly, I didn't mean that we don't have the resources to move stuff from A to B. Clearly we do, but even if we didn't, that wouldn't be the main problem. The main problem is that hungry communities are giving their food to rich communities. It's not that the rich are refusing to feed the poor. It's that the rich (and fat) are forcing the poor and hungry to hand over their food.

>>>housing? well if everyone wants a mansion then that's not possible, but a modest little abode, I >don't see why that would be so impossible...

well that's because you don't want to see the possibility of your argument being flawed.

Fuck you. Either tell me why you think it's flawed or shut up. Dick.

Like I say, why the hell can't everyone have a home? What's so impossible about that? Twat.

>>>>Does it need more political will? Blatantly. That's where we come in.

Who is we? The green party? The lib dems? A bunch of people who say hey man don't worry it'll be alright we'll work it out. Hmmm your reponse is hardly going to inspire confidence in middle england.>>If the government won't do it then do it yourself.

You keep talking about goverment but I don't see how your ideas translate into any kind of goverment.

WHAT?????

>>OK so we assume that you personally are ready to die for your ideas like so many indians did. Then no more you, and no more of your good kind hearted (if perhaps nieve) ideas. Will that be of benifit to the future world?


You fucking dickhead. You don't have to die. non-violent civil disobedience doesn't mean you have to die. You know virtually fuck-all about my ideas. How fucking dare you call me naive. Think you're so fucking clever. twat.

>>Besides that, this situation is a lot different than that of India and forced colonial rule. Don't forget that most people voted to be ruled as we are.

Well for starters it's not even true that most people voted.
Did people vote for the WTO?
Can people even make an informed decision when the media is so controled by corporate interests?

>>Trying to stop people killing the planet would be like you by yourself trying to stop a stampeed of elphants. Just run, get out the way and make sure you survive to make a better future.

How do you survive and make a better future if the planet has been destroyed. Where will this better future be? On the moon???

>>We do not have democracy untill we have proportional representation. If we had proportional representation I think people in our boat would lose against your average citizen who dosn't want to go back to living in the forest.

Would you rather live in the ocean?

Did I even say I wanted to make everyone live in a forest?

Are people happy under capitalism?

"Proportional Representation?" Oh the irony!!

Sure, PR is a small tiny microscopic step towards real democracy. But really it's not even a drop in the ocean. We won't have real democracy until we have direct democracy, participatory democracy. Communities making their own decisions about issues that affect them. We won't have any sort of democracy at all as long as our political parties are funded by corporations.

Sorry forgive me if I seem a bit rude. I'm just tired of explaining the same things again and again and again. It just gets a bit tedious. So I can't be arsed with any sort of proper explanations.

But try reading books like "Change The World Without Taking Power" and "We Are Everywhere: The Irrestible Rise of Global Anti-Capitalism", "Globalise Liberation", "Another World Is Possible: popular alternatives to globalisation at the world social forum", "Anti-Capitalism - A Beginner's Guide", "Alternatives to Economic Globalisation", "Another World Is Possible - If", "Anti-Capitalism: Where Now?", "People Challenging Globalisation", and read some articles from Znet / New Internationalist / The Ecologist / Red Pepper.
And read some basic texts on anarchism.



Or don't read them if you don't want. But be aware that there is all this theory (and practise), that these ideas aren't half-baked and ill-thought out (though if they appear so from what I've written it's because after all this time I'm now rapidly losing my patience to explain the same old things to so many different "oh but it'll never work" people.)


And no, anti-capitalism in the 21st century is NOT marxism, I'll say that now because sounds like you don't know anything about this movement and if one more person tries to tell me I'm a marxist I'm going to SCREAM.

You call me naive, which pisses me off so much because it kind of implies I haven't really thought that deeply about these things - which is an assumption you shoudn't make. I've been thinking and reading about and acting on these issues for over 5 years now. So feel free to disagree but don't try and say I don't know what I'm talking about.

It's all about autonomy. Autonomy's the way forward. Autonomy with a healthy dose of solidarity.

>Sure the oil will run out one day, but we've got to wean ourselves off oil before that >happens anyway if we don't want to destroy the planet. Put solar panels on every roof. >Use wind power and wave power. There's no reason why we need to rely on oil.

When considering the role of oil in the production of modern technology, remember that most alternative systems of energy — including solar panels/solar-nanotechnology, windmills, hydrogen fuel cells, biodiesel production facilities, nuclear power plants, etc. — rely on sophisticated technology.

In fact, all electrical devices make use of silver, copper, and/or platinum, each of which is discovered, extracted, transported, and fashioned using oil-powered machinery. For instance, in his book, The Lean Years: Politics of Scarcity, author Richard J. Barnet writes:

To produce a ton of copper requires 112 million BTU's or the
equivalent of 17.8 barrels of oil. The energy cost component
of aluminum is twenty times higher.

Nuclear energy requires uranium, which is also discovered, extracted, and transported using oil-powered machinery.

Most of the feedstock (soybeans, corn) for biofuels such as biodiesel and ethanol are grown using the high-tech, oil-powered industrial methods of agriculture described above.

In short, the so called "alternatives" to oil are actually "derivatives" of oil. Without an abundant and reliable supply of oil, we have no way of scaling these alternatives to the degree necessary to power the modern world.

Global oil discovery peaked in 1962 and has declined to virtually nothing in the past few years. We now consume 6 barrels of oil for every barrel we find.

Few people realize how much energy is concentrated in even a small amount of oil or gas. A barrel of oil contains the energy-equivalent of almost 25,000 hours of human labor. A single gallon of gasoline contains the energy-equivalent of 500 hours of human labor. Most people are stunned to find this out, even after confirming the accuracy of the numbers for themselves, but it makes sense when you think about it. It only takes one gallon of gasoline to propel a three ton SUV 10 miles in 10 minutes. How long would it take you to push a three ton SUV 10 miles?

While the energy-density of oil and gas give them rates of return comparable to a lottery ticket or marriage to a ketchup fortune heiress, the energy-density of solar and wind give them returns comparable to minimum wage jobs. A few examples should help illustrate this point more vividly:

1. It would take all of California's 13,000 wind turbines to
generate as much electricity as a single 555-megawatt
natural gas fired power plant.

2. On page 191 of his book The End of Oil: On the Edge of a
Perilous New World, author Paul Roberts tells us that:

" . . . if you add up all the solar photovoltaic cells now
running worldwide (2004), the combined output -
around 2,000 megawatts - barely rivals the output of
two coal-fired power plants."

3. It would take 4 Manhattan size city blocks of solar
equipment to produce the amount of energy distributed
by a single gas station in one day. With 17,000 gas
stations just in the United States, you don't need to be a
mathematician to realize that solar power is incapable of
meeting our urgent need for a new energy source that -
like oil - is dense, affordable, and transportable.

4. It would take close to 220,000 square kilometers of solar
panels to power the global economy via solar power.
This may sound like a marginally manageable number
until you realize that the total acreage covered by solar
panels in the entire world right now is a paltry 10 square
miles (about 17 kilometers).

5. To replace the amount of energy produced by a single
offshore drilling platform that pumps only 12,000 barrels
of oil per day, you would need either a 36 square mile
solar panel or 10,000 wind turbines.

Unfortunately, the odds of us upscaling our use of solar and wind to the point where they provide even just 2-3 percent of our total energy supply are about the same as the odds of Michael Moore and Dick Cheney teaming up to win a 5K relay race. Despite jaw-dropping levels of growth in these industries, coupled with practically miraculous drops in price per kilowatt hour (95% drop in two decades), along with increased interest from the public in alternative energies, the percentage of our total energy supply derived from solar and wind is projected to grow by only 10 percent per year.

Since we are starting with only one-sixth of one percent of our energy coming from solar and wind, a growth rate of 10 percent per year isn't going to do much to soften a national economic meltdown. Twenty-five years from now, we will be lucky if solar and wind account for one percent of our total energy supply.

While other alternative energy sources, such as wave and geothermal power, are fantastic sources of energy in and of themselves, they are incapable of replacing more than a fraction of our petroleum usage for the same reasons as solar and wind: they are nowhere near as energy dense as petroleum and they are inappropriate as transportation fuels. In addition, they are also limited by geography - wave power is only technically viable in coastal locations. Only a handful of nations, such as Iceland, have access to enough geothermal power to make up for much of their petroleum consumption.

This is by no means reason not to invest in these alternatives. We simply have to be realistic about what they can and can't do. On a household or village scale, they are certainly worthy investments. But to hope/expect they are going to power more than a small fraction of our forty-five trillion dollar per year (and growing) global industrial economy is woefully unrealistic.

Consequently, a declining supply of oil must be accompanied by either a declining supply of money or by hyperinflation. In either case, the result for the global banking system is the same: total collapse.

This financial collapse will, in turn, further devastate our ability to implement alternative systems of energy. Any crash program to develop new sources of energy will require a tremendous amount of capital, which is exactly what will not be available once the global monetary system has collapsed.

Thus, the aftermath of Peak Oil will extend far beyond what you can imagine. If you are focusing solely on the more fuel-efficient forms of transportation, or alternative sources of energy, you aren’t seeing the bigger picture.

If you've been wondering why the Bush administration has been spending money, cutting social programs, and starting wars like there's no tomorrow, now you have your answer: as far as they are concerned, there is no tomorrow.

Within a few months of global oil production hitting its peak, it will become impossible to dismiss the decline in supply as a merely transitory event. Once this occurs, you can expect traders on Wall Street to quickly bid the price up to, and possibly over, the $200 per barrel range as they realize the world is now in an era of permanent oil scarcity.

With oil at or above $200 per barrel, gas prices will reach $10 per gallon inside of a few weeks. This will cause a rapid breakdown of trucking industries and transportation networks. Importation and distribution of food, medicine, and consumer goods will grind to a halt.

The effects of this will be frightening. As former oil industry insider Jan Lundberg recently pointed out:

The scenario I foresee is that market-based panic will,
within a few days, drive prices up skyward. And as supplies
can no longer slake daily world demand of over 80 million
barrels a day, the market will become paralyzed at prices
too high for the wheels of commerce and even daily living in
"advanced" societies. There may be an event that appears
to trigger this final energy crash, but the overall cause will
be the huge consumption on a finite planet.

The trucks will no longer pull into Wal-Mart. Or Safeway or
other food stores. The freighters bringing packaged techno
-toys and whatnot from China will have no fuel. There will be
fuel in many places, but hoarding and uncertainty will trigger
outages, violence and chaos. For only a short time will the
police and military be able to maintain order, if at all.

The collapse will be hastened by the fact that the US national debt will become completely unsustainable once the price of oil gets into the $100 range. Once this mark is passed, the nations of the world will have no choice but to pull their investments out of the US while simultaneously switching from the dollar to the euro as the reserve currency for oil transactions. Along with the breakdown of domestic transportation networks, the global financial shift away from the dollar will wholly shatter the US economy.

If you're wondering why the mainstream media is not covering an issue of this magnitude 24/7, now you know. Once the seriousness of situation is generally acknowledged, a panic will spread on the markets and bring down the entire house of cards even if production hasn't actually peaked.

In summary, we are a prisoners of our own making.

Please put me right on all i've just posted if you see a better outcome. I don't like the look of it much. I wish you luck whatever happens. Sorry if I offended you.

Jools.

Ok so the transfer from using oil to using renewables requires energy. But that's a one-off energy cost. Once we've built the renewables technology, we won't need oil any more. Sure some time after that solar panels will get old and worn need replacing but the energy from that will come from already existing energy supplies - ie the renewables already constructed.

Do you see what I'm saying. You really don't need to keep using oil forever in order to change over to using renewables. Because once you've got your renewables, THAT becomes your energy supply.

Put solar panels on every roof. Tax incentives could help with this. Put a tax on oil, and remove all tax on making and buying solar panels. In fact, subsidise them.

Also, how about solar panels in the Sahara desert. Every country that used this energy would then pay those countries some money for the privalege of using their land. This would then help them to prosper too.

You could put wind turbines all over the place as well. Some people think they look ugly, some people don't. But it's a price worth paying if it helps to stop us peramently destroying the messing up the climate and destroying ourselves in the process.

Wave power is another good one.

Now if it's really not possible to transfer to all this without using too much oil, then we could use nuclear energy STRICTLY AS A SHORT TERM OPTION. But only if it was totally necessary - calculations would be necessary to determine this.

Alternatively, we could ration energy ALSO AS A SHORT TERM OPTION in order to divert energy into the process of building all those solar panels etc. They had food rationing during the Second World War - it wasn't popular but it was necessary. We are also in an emergency situation now, according to most of the world's climate scientists. It is widely believed there may be a "point of no return" - if the global temperature rises by more than a certain amount, a process will kick in which leads to irreversible and permanent global warming, so that earth will end up like venus - totally uninhabitable.

But I don't even think rationing would be necessary. Just build all that stuff. People are building stuff all the time. Think of all the cars being built every single day. All the office blocks. All the gadgets and all the widgets. If we can make all that stuff then we can make renewable energy sources too. It can be done, if there's the will to do it.

So that was in response to the first point you made - that renewable energy needs to be built using oil.

Secondly, the point that renewables can't make enough energy for our needs.

Well, different needs require different amounts of energy. Most energy requirements aren't as high as that of SUVs. As far as SUVs are concerned they'll probably have to go. Ultimately we'll have to cut down on flying as well. And transport in general. We'll have to learn to factor in the real costs of high energy activities. This can be done using energy taxes which will increase prices and reduce demands to a level which is environmentally sustainable.

People will have to get used to moving about less. Which won't be such a problem in the age of the internet.

Another important part of the solution is increased energy efficiency. A lot of the stuff we do can be done with less electricity. Simple things like better insulation are a step in the right direction. But also, a lot of industrial processes don't place enough priority on minimising energy use because energy is so cheap right now that they're focusing on cutting other costs. If energy is taxed to make it scarcer and thus more sustainable, they'll have more of an incentive to cut energy use.

Localised energy production would be good. If you have a solar panel on your roof then you're not wasting energy on electricity pylons. Energy is transfered from the power station to your house through wires. I imagine a lot of power is lost in those wires.

Air conditioning is not necessary in buildings even in hot countries. Buildings can be built to be naturally cool. Ever been boiling hot in a cathedral? Not that you'd have to build cathedrals! The point is that buildings can be built to be naturally cool. Obviously in summer, they'd need to be heated, BUT the need for that can be minimised to a great extent by proper insulation.

All these things are only part of the solution.

Another aspect is the localisation of the economy. Check out "Localisation: A Global Manifesto" by Colin Hines. Localisation would have positive effects not just for the environment but for all the other issues as well - fair trade, etc.

Yes there are massive forces standing in the way of making localisation a reality. But the movement is growing. It's something worth fighting for.

And localisation doesn't mean isolationism. It just means food and manufacturing is done as locally as possible. Meanwhile, IDEAS and CULTURE can of course be SHARED globally.

But that's just a very introduction.

There are all kinds of solutions. We just have to think of them. There's no reason why the world HAS to run on oil. If it doesn't, the worst that can happen is that we won't be able to do all the same things as before or have all the same material things. But then most people in the world never had these things anyway. Besides, I think a reorientation of economy / society away from material wealth and towards more connectedness between human beings can only be a good thing. What's the point in working 50 hours a week with only 2 weeks off a year just so that you can (in the words of irvine welsh) "Choose A Fucking Big Television" (or a small one more like, in the case of a lot of people!)

Now I say we need to make a steady transition away from oil. Starting as soon as possible. If there's a sudden shock then the economy will go into meltdown. But this doesn't have to happen.

>Do you see what I'm saying. You really don't need to keep using oil forever in order to >change over to using renewables. Because once you've got your renewables, THAT becomes >your energy supply.

I do see what you are saying, i'm not stupid. you don't seem to understand fundamental physics regarding energy transfer. I will say again.

There is not enough oil for all this. It takes oil to make solar panels because they require a lot of energy to make. solar panels will not generate enough energy to make more solar panels unless we just use solar panels to make solar panels and nothing else, what good would that be? If we use renewables to make more renwables that would be a downward spiral of energy loss.

>Put solar panels on every roof. Tax incentives could help with this. Put a tax on oil, >and remove all tax on making and buying solar panels. In fact, subsidise them.

tax, solar panels, subsidy, all unsustainable.

>Also, how about solar panels in the Sahara desert. Every country that used this energy >would then pay those countries some money for the privalege of using their land. This >would then help them to prosper too.

moving energy all over the planet from one place. no. not sustainable or sensible. a waste of energy in fact.

>You could put wind turbines all over the place as well. Some people think they look ugly, >some people don't. But it's a price worth paying if it helps to stop us peramently >destroying the messing up the climate and destroying ourselves in the process.

all over the place. where? how many? do we have the factories and energy resouces to make them?

>Wave power is another good one.

yes but same laws of diminishing returns apply.

>Now if it's really not possible to transfer to all this without using too much oil, then >we could use nuclear energy STRICTLY AS A SHORT TERM OPTION. But only if it was totally >necessary - calculations would be necessary to determine this.

well yes calculations are necessary to determine everything, well said. trouble is we need oil to make nuclear staions and what shall we do with the waste?

>Alternatively, we could ration energy ALSO AS A SHORT TERM OPTION in order to divert >energy into the process of building all those solar panels etc. They had food rationing >during the Second World War - it wasn't popular but it was necessary. We are also in an >emergency situation now, according to most of the world's climate scientists. It is >widely believed there may be a "point of no return" - if the global temperature rises by >more than a certain amount, a process will kick in which leads to irreversible and >permanent global warming, so that earth will end up like venus - totally uninhabitable.

the earth will not end up like venus. it is too far from the sun. Ration energy (but only in the short term?)!

>But I don't even think rationing would be necessary. Just build all that stuff. People >are building stuff all the time. Think of all the cars being built every single day. All >the office blocks. All the gadgets and all the widgets. If we can make all that stuff >then we can make renewable energy sources too. It can be done, if there's the will to do >it.

Cookoo, Cookoo. Nobody is gonna do it for free now are they (while starving and unable to feed thier family).

>So that was in response to the first point you made - that renewable energy needs to be >built using oil.

Glad we got that all sorted out, easy eh?

>Secondly, the point that renewables can't make enough energy for our needs.

>Well, different needs require different amounts of energy. Most energy requirements >aren't as high as that of SUVs. As far as SUVs are concerned they'll probably have to go.

yeah probably

>Ultimately we'll have to cut down on flying as well. And transport in general.

oh yeah, i'd say so

>We'll have to learn to factor in the real costs of high energy activities. This can be >done using energy taxes which will increase prices and reduce demands to a level which is >environmentally sustainable.
>People will have to get used to moving about less. Which won't be such a problem in the >age of the internet.

oh so you still want everybody to have a computer in you new world order. I bet your planning on setting up a solar panel buisness too eh.

>Another important part of the solution is increased energy efficiency.

Solution! heh he ha ha har ho ho he he he he

>A lot of the stuff we do can be done with less electricity. Simple things like better >insulation are a step in the right direction. But also, a lot of industrial processes >don't place enough priority on minimising energy use because energy is so cheap right now >that they're focusing on cutting other costs. If energy is taxed to make it scarcer and >thus more sustainable, they'll have more of an incentive to cut energy use.

taxes taxes energy taxes blah blah, you just don't get it do you.

>Localised energy production would be good. If you have a solar panel on your roof then >you're not wasting energy on electricity pylons. Energy is transfered from the power >station to your house through wires. I imagine a lot of power is lost in those wires.

>Air conditioning is not necessary in buildings even in hot countries. Buildings can be >built to be naturally cool. Ever been boiling hot in a cathedral? Not that you'd have to >build cathedrals! The point is that buildings can be built to be naturally cool. >Obviously in summer, they'd need to be heated, BUT the need for that can be minimised to >a great extent by proper insulation.

Marvelous what they can do with computers and global indutry isn't it. I give up.

>All these things are only part of the solution.

Oh goody there's more to come.

>Another aspect is the localisation of the economy. Check out "Localisation: A Global >Manifesto" by Colin Hines. Localisation would have positive effects not just for the >environment but for all the other issues as well - fair trade, etc.

more trade, taxes etc etc etc, you want to change the world and keep it exactly the same too.

>Yes there are massive forces standing in the way of making localisation a reality. But >the movement is growing. It's something worth fighting for.
>And localisation doesn't mean isolationism. It just means food and manufacturing is done >as locally as possible. Meanwhile, IDEAS and CULTURE can of course be SHARED globally.

Great lets use some more energy building more factories everywhere too. lets all remain individual without being individual but together as one and not isolated even though we are isolated.

>But that's just a very introduction.

Introduction! That's the end as far as i'm concerned.

>There are all kinds of solutions. We just have to think of them. There's no reason why >the world HAS to run on oil. If it doesn't, the worst that can happen is that we won't be >able to do all the same things as before or have all the same material things.

There are all kinds of solutions that we havn't thought of yet?! hey did you know there's a small monkey inside your computer plugging in the right wires on the switchboard so you can read this and he's about as scientific as what you just said. If the world is in your hand we are in bigger trouble than I thought. There is a reason the world has to run on oil. we don't have anything else apart from the things we havn't thought of yet of course.

>But then most people in the world never had these things anyway. Besides, I think a >reorientation of economy / society away from material wealth and towards more >connectedness between human beings can only be a good thing.

Oh I see. A reorientation of the economy away from being about wealth. Genius why didn't I think of that?

What's the point in working 50 hours a week with only 2 weeks off a year just so that you can (in the words of irvine welsh) "Choose A Fucking Big Television" (or a small one more like, in the case of a lot of people!)

Oh no heaven forbid a small tv.

Now I say we need to make a steady transition away from oil. Starting as soon as possible. If there's a sudden shock then the economy will go into meltdown. But this doesn't have to happen.

You are going to get some sudden shocks in your lifetime m8.

>>tax, solar panels, subsidy, all unsustainable.

Tax and subsidies are a sustainable way of funding solar panels in the short term, during the transition to solar panels.

>>moving energy all over the planet from one place. no. not sustainable or sensible. a waste of energy in fact.

Er... energy is best produced locally.
But if you can't meet all your energy needs locally, you have to import it from other places. Like solar panels in the Sahara desert, or wave power in the sea. Of course some of that energy is wasted. But it's simple physics that at least some of it will get to its destination. Lots of it in fact. The point is, you won't be using oil (apart from in the short term while the transition is being made from using oil to using renewables).

The surival of our species is at stake. If the human race gets its arse into gear there's no reason why it can't work to make this happen.

>>all over the place. where? how many? do we have the factories and energy resouces to make them?

Like I say, yes of course we do. We're building stuff all the time. Why not instead of building stupid pointless consumer disposables that adverts persuade us we want, why not build renewable energy technology instead? Think of all the jobs that would provide. Now because resources would be diverted from other parts of the economy, we'd have less material wealth during this time. But we'll have less material wealth anyway once the oil runs out if we don't make a transition away from oil.

The human race survived for many thousands of years without oil. Just because we've become addicted to it, doesn't mean we can't ever make a transition away from it.

>>yes but same laws of diminishing returns apply.

It's a question of scale. You have to make sure you build ENOUGH wave turbines. Just keep on building them. Like I say, resources will have to be diverted from elsewhere in the economy to do this. People can live through that. People lived through rationing in 2 world wars. But the rationing needed to build lots of wave turbines would be nothing compared with that. We won't have a shortage of food. We'll just have to stop buying new cars so often, etc - which is something we need to do anyway, really.

>>trouble is we need oil to make nuclear staions and what shall we do with the waste?

Like I said, this is just a last resort, to buy time if building the renewables is taking a long time. We store the waste like we're doing now. It's not sustainable to do this indefinitely, but just for a while until the renewables have been built, it's not the end of the world. Well, it might be if we're unlucky. But if we DON'T make a transition away from oil then it'll definitely be the end of the world.

>>the earth will not end up like venus. it is too far from the sun. Ration energy (but only in the short term?)!

That's the whole point - the earth WILL end up like venus. It's not about distance from the sun. It's about the greenhouse effect. Scientists believe there is a point of no return, above which temperatures will continue to rise even if we stop producing CO2. This point of return may only be about 10C. If we reach that mark, we could be fucked.

If this point of no return thing is true, then the earth will continue to get hotter and hotter and hotter. It won't stop getting hotter.

And yes, rationing energy in the short term until we've built the renewables to give us enough energy to carry on as before. Having said that, it depends how much energy counts as rationing. If you want enough for everyone to have three cars and outside heating, then the rationing will have to be more permanent. What I meant about short term rationing is that there'll be a reduction in energy levels available to the consumer while energy is being diverted away from consumer goods production towards renewable energy infrastructure production. Once that infrastructure is complete (ie enough renewable energy to meet our demands and to maintain itself, without using oil) then the "rationing" will stop (within reason - like I say, there won't be an infinite amount of energy available but there'll be enough to get on with life).

>>Cookoo, Cookoo. Nobody is gonna do it for free now are they (while starving and unable to feed thier family).

I didn't say for free. The government (and governments are here to stay at least in the medium term) will EMPLOY PEOPLE to do this work. They'll do this with tax money. Sure money is scarce, but governments have a remarkable ability to find the funds when they believe it's necessary. Wars are massively expensive but does that stop them finding the money? Does it fuck? The pentagon have already decided that climate change is a worse threat than terrorism. I think governments will eventually come round to the idea that climate change is urgent and that if we want to continue to exist we must take drastic action. Now of course this tax will divert money from the rest of the economy - so there'll be less energy and money available for the consumer during this period of transition away from oil into renewables. But people will have to put up with that, like they did during the world wars. And like I say, it would probably take a fraction of that sacrifice. If all the effort that went into manufacturing new cars went instead into producing a renewable energy infrastructure big enough to replace oil entirely then that would probably be enough to do the trick.

Human beings have put people in space. We're capable of just about anything when the will is there. When it comes to facing the threat of our own extinction I think we'll find a way of doing it. Or are we that pathetic that we can't get anything right?

But it takes pressure from the people who have ALREADY realised how serious this is, to persuade governments and challenge the vested interests such as oil companies who would rather hide their heads in the sand.

>>oh so you still want everybody to have a computer in you new world order.

Yep, that'd be nice :-) Don't you reckon?

I mean it's not as if they use up much energy compared with transport systems. People don't move about so much (but we save LOADS of energy). But people can still communicate across the world. Sounds like a fair compromise. It's not as if there'll be NO energy. There'll be enough for computers. Especially if they're made more energy efficient.

I believe in putting a tax on energy and using the revenue to subsidise purchase of or research into energy efficiency. This provides economic incentives to save energy.

So yeah, computers can be made more energy efficient - but they're already a relatively very low consumer of energy. Computers only need energy to process (and display) information. This takes WAY less energy than moving great chunks of metal across the earth or through the air.

Now those computers need to be transported from production site to the place where they get bought. But, a) production should be localised (see Localisation: A Global Manifesto by Colin Hines) and b) the economy should be diverted away from the attitude of throwing things away after a couple of years. Why not have computers that last 30 years? Thirty years ago computers were crap. Today they can do pretty much all we want them to do.

Once we've got as much energy as we can from renewables, if we ban the use of fossil fuels then we'll see how much energy we've got. That'll set the price of energy according to the laws of supply and demand. Then since people will be paying the REAL cost of the energy they use, the expensiveness of energy will be an incentive to save energy by keeping things for longer before chucking them away. And mending things instead of buying a new one. This will become a necessity. And because it becomes a necessity to preserve things rather than 'consume' them, demand for longer lasting things will increase and so people will start designing things with "long-lasting" in mind. Simple economics really.

>>I bet your planning on setting up a solar panel buisness too eh.

Er... no. Next question?


>>Solution! heh he ha ha har ho ho he he he he

No, I said part of the solution.

The stuff we use takes up WAY more energy than it needs to. Therefore we need to make it more efficient. Sounds totally logical to me. That way, we'll need less energy. We'll still need quite a lot of energy. I think renewables CAN supply quite a lot of energy if we make enough solar panels, wave turbines, etc. Part of the solution is this, part of the solution is energy efficiency. Insulation for example. etc.

>>heh he ha ha har ho ho he he he he

>>taxes taxes energy taxes blah blah, you just don't get it do you.

>>Marvelous what they can do with computers and global indutry isn't it. I give up.

Now come on, those aren't arguments are they. You can do better than that ;-)

>>more trade, taxes etc etc etc, you want to change the world and keep it exactly the same too.

You're seriously not challenging my arguments here. You don't like the sound of them so you slag them off without any logical analysis.

I'm a revolutionary. I'm also a realist. In the short run, (if we don't destroy the planet first), governments and taxes are here to stay. Taxes can be used as incentives. You tax something you want the public to cut down on (eg oil-based energy), this reduces demand and hence use (up to a point, depending on how much tax you apply) and also generates money which can be used to subidise the thing you want to encourage instead - like renewable energy.

It's standard economic policy to use taxes in this way. It's just that it needs to be applied to climate change on a far bolder level because we need to make as quick a transition as possible. Now I'm not saying this is the whole solution. It's part of a wider strategy.

So you don't want taxes? You don't want trade? You don't want industry?

What's wrong with public spending? Are you a neoliberal or something?
What's wrong with people swapping things? Are you a lennist or something?
What's wrong with using technology to make things? Are you an anarcho-primitivist or something?

Like I say, I believe in revolution (in some shape or form). I believe in a trasformation of global society / economy. But this has to be a long term goal. Climate Change is a more urgent priority.

I'd like a society where local communities run themselves autonomously through participatory democracy and cooperate with other communities through a loose non-hierarhcical community of communities. Bare with that though, it may sound wacky but I'm not going to elaborate because that would be a digression and I don't want to go off on a massive tangent.

This kind of transformation (which has arguably already begun - witness the Zapatistas in Chiapas for example) will take a long time.

But we don't have a long time, as far as climate change is concerned. We need to act now.
And right now, governments make public policy in their centralised hierarchy and they need to act.

>>>But that's just a very introduction.

Introduction! That's the end as far as i'm concerned.

Then you're EXTREMELY narrow-minded and lacking in imagination.

I'm sorry if I didn't explain the theory of localisation very well but it is a well thought out school of thought. And I tried to sum it up as briefly as possible. So it may sound like a contradiction but it's not. There's no reason why we can't produce goods things locally but share ideas and culture globally. It's not being isolated and not-isolated at the same time. It's being local as far as industry goes, but global as far as information and culture goes. Two different things. Not that hard to get your head around.

You may think it's "the end as far as your concerned" but you'd be mistaken. Try reading up on it. I bet will make more sense if you read what the proponents have to say.

>>There are all kinds of solutions that we havn't thought of yet?! hey did you know there's a small monkey inside your computer plugging in the right wires on the switchboard so you can read this and he's about as scientific as what you just said. If the world is in your hand we are in bigger trouble than I thought. There is a reason the world has to run on oil. we don't have anything else apart from the things we havn't thought of yet of course.

You think there'll never be new inventions. There is absolutely no reason we have to run on oil. We went for thousands of years without oil. OK if we didn't replace it with anything else then we'd have to go back to living like we lived before. Not the end of the world, but like I say, I don't think that'll be necessary.

I've offered plenty ideas so far. All I'm saying is that in addition to those ideas there are probably things we haven't thought of yet. A hundred years ago, there were plenty of things which hadn't been invented. Why should that not be the case now?

It almost sounds like you WANT the world to have to run on oil and you'd rather be dead than wrong.

>>Oh I see. A reorientation of the economy away from being about wealth. Genius why didn't I think of that?


NO, you don't get it do you.

A reorientation away from being about materialism. Material things don't make us rich. They provide the illusion of wealth. Imagine (HYPOTHETICALLY!) a society with adequate health care and good culture and healthy personal relationships between people, and free universal education up to degree level, but a lot less disposable consumer rubbish. Would that be a poorer society? Only if you believe the right wing economists who think that having lots of stuff is the way to be happy.

It's not that people wouldn't have money. It's just that the things available would be of a different nature. That's not a reduction of wealth. It's a different kind of wealth. A better kind of wealth.

And also, I'm not talking about a COMPLETE abolition of the kind things the economy is focused on producing, I'm talking about a *reorientation*, a change of emphasis. I'm not talking about going back to living in forests.

>>What's the point in working 50 hours a week with only 2 weeks off a year just so that you can (in the words of irvine welsh) "Choose A Fucking Big Television" (or a small one more like, in the case of a lot of people!)
>>Oh no heaven forbid a small tv.

What??

It was a reference to train-spotting. But then it's not accurate that most people have "fucking big television". Hence the "or even a small one".

Yes tv sucks. I didn't say, it didn't. So what's with the sarcasm?

My point was that there's no point in working your arse off so that in your small amount of free time you can 'enjoy' the dream of the consumer lifestyle. I think that's a fair enough point but there you go again with your (not very) clever remarks.

>>You are going to get some sudden shocks in your lifetime m8.

Again, you make no attempt to address my argument. If you disagree, either explain why or don't bother. But do yourself a favour and cut the clever remarks.

I'll repeat what I said:

"Now I say we need to make a steady transition away from oil. Starting as soon as possible. If there's a sudden shock then the economy will go into meltdown. But this doesn't have to happen."

Q:Why doesn't this have to happen?
A:er... like I say, if we make a *steady transition* as opposed to waiting until the last minute, then there will not be suddent shocks.

Look at you, "the end is nigh so let's all give up".

Whereas I'm saying let's discuss what we can actually do to stop the catastrophe from happening.

I suggest you look into how much oil is left now (google, peak oil).

We are constantly being asked to choose between two sides in a false conflict. Governments, charities and propagandists of all kinds are fond of presenting us with choices that are no choice at all (e.g. the Central Electricity Generating Board in England once presented its nuclear program with the slogan 'Nuclear Age or Stone Age'. The CEGB would like people to believe that these are the only two alternatives -- we have the illusion of choice, but as long as they control the choices we perceive as available to us, they also control the outcome).

The new moralists love to tell those in the rich West how they will 'have to make sacrifices', how they 'exploit the starving children of the Third World'. The choice we are given is between sacrificial altruism or narrow individualism. (Charities cash in on the resulting guilt by offering us a feeling of having done something, in exchange for a coin in the collecting tin.) Yes, by living in the rich West we do exploit the poor of the Third World -- but not personally, not deliberately. We can make some changes in our life, boycott, make sacrifices, but the effects are marginal. We become aware of the false conflict we are being presented with when we realize that under this global social system we, as individuals, are as locked in our global role as 'exploiters' as others are in their global role as the exploited. We have a role in society, but little or no power to do anything about it. We reject the false choice of 'sacrifice or selfishness' by calling for the destruction of the global social system whose existence forces that decision upon us. It isn't a case of tinkering with the system, of offering token sacrifices or calling for 'a little less selfishness'. Charities and reformers never break out of the terrain of the false choice.