Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

Total FF Phase-out in a Decade is Possible--Study

Re: Total FF Phase-out in a Decade is Possible--Study

Unread postby dohboi » Tue 26 Apr 2016, 20:45:27

Not sure I follow your wanderings here. Are first and second toilets and cell phones?

What we should all be using is composting toilets. All you really need for those is a pile of leaves.

I'm not exactly sure what we're arguing about at this point though. We seem to agree that there is a great disparity in income. Therefore, it should follow that a reduction by the consumption of the top 20%, which by your figures consumes about 77% of all resources, should free up a lot for the poorest.

But look, none of this is easy, never has been, and it has been getting nothing but worse and worse as far finding some way forward that has some scintilla of fairness, given historic and present inequalities, yet has some remotest chance of preserving any kind of planet that is remotely survivable.

Just don't assume that the Koch brother, Exxon and the other ultra-rich haters of the poor who are selling this kind of tripe that coal and other ffs are the only saviors for the poor...don't assume those @$$wipes have somehow more concern for the poor than environmentalists and other folks throwing their very bodies in front of the juggernaut to try to stop the omni-cidal fossil-death-fuel train that is going to (and is already) trample on and obliterate the poor--mostly children and women--first and most furiously.

[/rant] :) :) :) :) :)
User avatar
dohboi
Harmless Drudge
Harmless Drudge
 
Posts: 19990
Joined: Mon 05 Dec 2005, 04:00:00

Re: Total FF Phase-out in a Decade is Possible--Study

Unread postby Tanada » Wed 27 Apr 2016, 08:17:34

dohboi wrote:Just don't assume that the Koch brother, Exxon and the other ultra-rich haters of the poor who are selling this kind of tripe that coal and other ffs are the only saviors for the poor...don't assume those @$$wipes have somehow more concern for the poor than environmentalists and other folks throwing their very bodies in front of the juggernaut to try to stop the omni-cidal fossil-death-fuel train that is going to (and is already) trample on and obliterate the poor--mostly children and women--first and most furiously.


Hold up there Pilgrim! The whole haters of the poor meme is ridiculous on the face of it, but for some reason certain ideological factions continue to spout it endlessly.

Not caring about the poor one way or another is a fairly accurate way of looking at the uber rich and the corporations in the same category. The poor do not have much influence in politics, and politicians are the main obstacle to the rich doing whatever the heck they want to do with their wealth.

In the USA the large majority of people, including the urban poor people, do not bother to organize politically, write their politicians, or even vote. That makes them eminently unimportant to the uber wealthy, not objects worthy of hate.
Alfred Tennyson wrote:We are not now that strength which in old days
Moved earth and heaven, that which we are, we are;
One equal temper of heroic hearts,
Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.
User avatar
Tanada
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 17050
Joined: Thu 28 Apr 2005, 03:00:00
Location: South West shore Lake Erie, OH, USA

Re: Total FF Phase-out in a Decade is Possible--Study

Unread postby ralfy » Wed 27 Apr 2016, 20:20:35

dohboi wrote:Not sure I follow your wanderings here. Are first and second toilets and cell phones?

What we should all be using is composting toilets. All you really need for those is a pile of leaves.

I'm not exactly sure what we're arguing about at this point though. We seem to agree that there is a great disparity in income. Therefore, it should follow that a reduction by the consumption of the top 20%, which by your figures consumes about 77% of all resources, should free up a lot for the poorest.

But look, none of this is easy, never has been, and it has been getting nothing but worse and worse as far finding some way forward that has some scintilla of fairness, given historic and present inequalities, yet has some remotest chance of preserving any kind of planet that is remotely survivable.

Just don't assume that the Koch brother, Exxon and the other ultra-rich haters of the poor who are selling this kind of tripe that coal and other ffs are the only saviors for the poor...don't assume those @$$wipes have somehow more concern for the poor than environmentalists and other folks throwing their very bodies in front of the juggernaut to try to stop the omni-cidal fossil-death-fuel train that is going to (and is already) trample on and obliterate the poor--mostly children and women--first and most furiously.

[/rant] :) :) :) :) :)


My point is about uneven distribution. That can be seen in toilets, and I was guessing the same for cell phones. That's because even though phones can be purchased for as low as $8, there's still the cost of the sim card plus prepaid access (perhaps a global average of around 10 to 20 cents a minute?). Also, such phones don't last very long.

Composting toilets are helpful if there is a lot of compost available. That's not often the case for urban areas, where probably more than half of the world population lives. It might also be helpful to find out why more people from rural areas move to urban ones, especially in developing countries.

The reason why I brought up two other points is because I don't think the problem simply involves uneven distribution. To recap,

It is very clear that most people are poor and that personal consumption is uneven. Therefore, it is obvious that by decreasing consumption among the middle class (those who earn around $10 a day?) more will be available to the poor (those who earn less, with almost half earning only around $2.50?). But how is that done in a global capitalist system where the middle class wants to consume more and more people want to join the middle class?

Also, given the point that the same level of production will remain (that is, the only thing changed is uneven distribution), then how can a total phase-out of FF take place?

Finally, it is possible that even with basic needs met, we will still be in overshoot?

https://theconversation.com/if-everyone ... uble-43905
User avatar
ralfy
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 5569
Joined: Sat 28 Mar 2009, 11:36:38
Location: The Wasteland

Re: Total FF Phase-out in a Decade is Possible--Study

Unread postby ralfy » Wed 27 Apr 2016, 20:40:14

Tanada wrote:
dohboi wrote:Just don't assume that the Koch brother, Exxon and the other ultra-rich haters of the poor who are selling this kind of tripe that coal and other ffs are the only saviors for the poor...don't assume those @$$wipes have somehow more concern for the poor than environmentalists and other folks throwing their very bodies in front of the juggernaut to try to stop the omni-cidal fossil-death-fuel train that is going to (and is already) trample on and obliterate the poor--mostly children and women--first and most furiously.


Hold up there Pilgrim! The whole haters of the poor meme is ridiculous on the face of it, but for some reason certain ideological factions continue to spout it endlessly.

Not caring about the poor one way or another is a fairly accurate way of looking at the uber rich and the corporations in the same category. The poor do not have much influence in politics, and politicians are the main obstacle to the rich doing whatever the heck they want to do with their wealth.

In the USA the large majority of people, including the urban poor people, do not bother to organize politically, write their politicians, or even vote. That makes them eminently unimportant to the uber wealthy, not objects worthy of hate.


Other points to consider:

Years ago, most earned only around a dollar a day, but now they are earning around $2.50.

The gap between rich and poor grew considerably, with only a fraction of the world's population possessing more credit than the bottom third.

I believe that many live in urban areas, and most are moving to them to study, find better work, or train to work abroad and earn more.

The global middle class is growing, and given previous rates, may make up almost half of the world's population in a decade or so. That class, which has access not only to basic needs but also to wants (toilets, cell phones, etc.), generally consumes more resources per capita than the poor.

More wealth has been flowing from rich to poor countries for many years, leading to rapid economic development in developing economies and the rise of BRICS with forty emerging markets.

Thus, we have a rich who want to be richer, but do so ultimately through growing consumer markets.

We have a middle class that earns from the same growing markets.

We have a large number of poor who are becoming richer as they make those growing markets possible.

The catch is that such growth, leading to a large middle class enjoying the use of cell phones, toilets (composting or otherwise), and RE technofixes, will very likely require extensive use of FFs for mining, manufacturing, shipping, etc., of components for infrastructure, consumer goods, and services. With that, a total phase-out of FFs is unlikely.

If any, something like a phase-out will take place as that growth reaches physical limits of the biosphere:

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre ... g-collapse
User avatar
ralfy
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 5569
Joined: Sat 28 Mar 2009, 11:36:38
Location: The Wasteland

Re: Total FF Phase-out in a Decade is Possible--Study

Unread postby dohboi » Fri 29 Apr 2016, 18:46:11

T wrote:

Not caring about the poor one way or another is a fairly accurate way of looking at the uber rich and the corporations in the same category. The poor do not have much influence in politics, and politicians are the main obstacle to the rich doing whatever the heck they want to do with their wealth.

In the USA the large majority of people, including the urban poor people, do not bother to organize politically, write their politicians, or even vote. That makes them eminently unimportant to the uber wealthy, not objects worthy of hate.


Can't really follow this, since the first sentence seems to be in direct contradiction with the last (and most of the others). Did you mean inaccurate in the first sentence?

r, thanks for the clarifications. The idea of some a ways back anyway is that the consumption levels on earth would converge so that the poorest could consume enough to have an at least minimally adequate life, while the consumption level of the richest, and ideally of the average total population, would contract.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contracti ... onvergence

It may well be that we are past the point when even such unlikely near-utopian visions of economic justice and ecological sustainable are even mathematically possible (let alone politically, etc...).
User avatar
dohboi
Harmless Drudge
Harmless Drudge
 
Posts: 19990
Joined: Mon 05 Dec 2005, 04:00:00

Previous

Return to Environment, Weather & Climate

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 64 guests