Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

Have Even A Partial Solution?

General discussions of the systemic, societal and civilisational effects of depletion.

Re: Do you have an 'Acceptable' Problem ?

Unread postby MonteQuest » Mon 19 Jun 2006, 11:49:13

garyp wrote: I posed the original question to see if anyone, prompted by realisation that the usual suggested solutions weren't tenable on the large scale, could identify any more workable approaches. The idea would then be to attempt to integrate these into a workable overall plan and try and get that in front of those that could make it happen.

Instead what I came across was a total inability (except for one person) to deal with the real world, instead retreating into a la la land of failed ideas and wishful thinking.


And why do you believe the 'usual suggested solutions" are not born of the realization of what is needed on a large scale to effect meaningful change?

You think a powerdown approach was born of wishful thinking? Of utter surrender?

I guess you don't yet grasp that our current world paradigm is unsustainable.
A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
User avatar
MonteQuest
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 16299
Joined: Mon 06 Sep 2004, 02:00:00
Location: Westboro, MO

Re: Do you have an 'Acceptable' Problem ?

Unread postby MonteQuest » Mon 19 Jun 2006, 11:51:20

garyp wrote:After all, I'm the one saying that people will not behave rationally and will not give up on cherished ideas when put under pressure.


Yes, and you are a prime example of that behavior.
A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
User avatar
MonteQuest
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 16299
Joined: Mon 06 Sep 2004, 02:00:00
Location: Westboro, MO

Re: Do you have an 'Acceptable' Problem ?

Unread postby Ludi » Mon 19 Jun 2006, 12:03:33

Novus wrote:Contrary to what many think here think power down is not a workable solution. In fact it is not a solution at all. It is like saying we don't have a solution, now go kill yourself. The power down crowd as turned into a death cult combined with mad max suvivalism.


In what way is promoting the reduction in the need to earn, changing to a simpler largely vegetarian diet, growing one's own food or joining a community garden, changing to a home based business, etc etc "like saying now go kill youself"? In what way are any of the above activites lethal? These are just a very small sample of simple actions we can take to reduce our need for energy inputs (powerdown = reducing one's need for energy inputs).

In what way are any of these things indicative of a death cult or mad max survivalism?
Ludi
 

Re: Do you have an 'Acceptable' Problem ?

Unread postby Ibon » Mon 19 Jun 2006, 12:09:40

What is the fear or sense of failure that is associated with a culture "Powering Down". Maybe this is one of the hurdles that society has to overcome. This association that powering down somehow means a compromise to ones quality of life. On the individual level I guess these must to be some of the fears:

1) Fear of physical labour
2) Fear of sharing transportation with others
3) Fear of not being able to satisfy ones recreational needs
4) A sense of restriction to ones personal freedom of mobility
5) Fear of not being able to consume
6) A sense that ones skills will not have an application in a
powered down world.

What else?
User avatar
Ibon
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 7609
Joined: Fri 03 Dec 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Volcan, Panama

Re: Do you have an 'Acceptable' Problem ?

Unread postby MonteQuest » Mon 19 Jun 2006, 12:18:25

Novus wrote: Contrary to what many think here think power down is not a workable solution. In fact it is not a solution at all. It is like saying we don't have a solution, now go kill yourself. The power down crowd as turned into a death cult combined with mad max suvivalism.


So, let me get this straight: You have overextended yourself and you live way beyond your means. You are in debt up to your eyeballs, and going deeper into debt every day.

Someone suggests that you stop living beyond your means, get rid of all your superfluous toys and possessions that are dragging you under, pay off your debts and learn to live within your income, and you say, "no, I don't want to give up anything. Find a way to refinance me." "Being financially responsible is not a solution!"

Sooner or later you must powerdown, either by choice or by default. No one says that a powerdown is a solution that will maintain living like we do. Nothing can maintain living like we do, even fusion power...as energy is only one of the limiting factors of life here on earth.

Firstly, oil does not equal food. Food is energy and can really come from any energy source with the right knowhow. Fertilizer can be made with wind power by taking nitrogen out of the air. It can also be done passively by growing peanuts and hemp which produce their fertilizer direcly from the sun though a process called photo-nitrogen fixation.


Right now, food is oil. Try reading Eating Fossil Fuels by Dale Pfeiffer. It can be googled.

Currently, food cannot be produced by just any source of energy on the scale we need it.

We take nitrogen out the air now to make anhydrous ammonia, but we get the H from natural gas.

Secondly, we could cut our elecrtical use in half simply by switching from AC current to DC current.


Simply? Perhaps for local short distance power generation of wind and solar, but for all else? Get real? Try doing a little reading on why we went to AC versus DC.

And how many years would it take for population growth alone to eclipse all of the efficiency gains?

Thirdly, we can divorce our cars and go back to walkable communities. Cars waste enormous amounts of power.


Yes, and they provide 1 out of every 6 jobs.

Divorcing our cars means divorcing suburbia and the entire infrastructure associated with it.

How long do you suppose it would take to dismantle 100 years of car culture?
A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
User avatar
MonteQuest
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 16299
Joined: Mon 06 Sep 2004, 02:00:00
Location: Westboro, MO

Re: Do you have an 'Acceptable' Problem ?

Unread postby MonteQuest » Mon 19 Jun 2006, 12:27:10

Ibon wrote:What is the fear or sense of failure that is associated with a culture "Powering Down".


I think they must see it as caving in and accepting defeat, rather than recognizing that we have reached certain limits about what we can do.

I, in no way, feel that a powerdown is giving up on anything. It is recognizing that there are limits and we have been living beyond them. It is also recognizing that we just might return to a mindset that sees "free time" is worth more than money. That quality is worth more than quantity.
A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
User avatar
MonteQuest
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 16299
Joined: Mon 06 Sep 2004, 02:00:00
Location: Westboro, MO

Re: Do you have an 'Acceptable' Problem ?

Unread postby Novus » Mon 19 Jun 2006, 17:24:29

MonteQuest wrote:So, let me get this straight: You have overextended yourself and you live way beyond your means. You are in debt up to your eyeballs, and going deeper into debt every day.


Your solution is to get out of debt by quitting your job and dropping out of society so the debt collectors can't collect. Real brilliant Monty. Have you ever stopped to think honestly about what power down really means. I mean really means in the end of all ends. Powerdown = Suicide. Nothing more to see here.

We take nitrogen out the air now to make anhydrous ammonia, but we get the H from natural gas.


Hydrogen can be made with any source of electricity using electrolosys. Nitogen can be taken directly from the air.

Currently, food cannot be produced by just any source of energy on the scale we need it.


I am tired of letting this slide. So am calling you out, right here and now. I want a source on that. How can you proove a negative like that? Just so we are clear what we are really talking about is fertilizer production. Food is really eating fertilizer.

In NAZI Germany the Germans were able to scale up the Fishor-Tropsch process to meet all their military needs. The time measured to do it was not in years, but in months. The Germans never lost a battle for lack of fuel. Almost anything can be done if you want it bad enough. In WWII America built 50,000 liberty ships. Car manufactures started making tanks. Typewriter manufacturers started making guns. Kitchen appliance makers started making airplane parts. Cosmetics makers started producing bullet casings. There is no reason American, European, and Chinese industry couldn't start pumping out windmills and stirling solar by the tens of thousands. Don't tell me what can't done.

Perhaps for local short distance power generation of wind and solar, but for all else? Get real? Try doing a little reading on why we went to AC versus DC.


AC took over so electricity could be transported long distances. Nobody cared about how much power was wasted because energy was cheap. DC power can only be transported short distances but that doesn't matter if the energy is being generated on your rooftop. The reason why off grid solar powered homes are impractical is because they try to use energy wasting AC current. The solar panel generates DC power which is converted into AC to power the home. The AC current travels 50ft to be converted back in DC internally by the appliance. That is an asinine system. It has to go though the conversion process twice in 50 ft where half the energy is lost through in each conversion. An off grid DC home would only require one quarter of the solar power than an AC home. The same thing would apply to a DC wind powered factory or office building.

Yes, and they provide 1 out of every 6 jobs.

Divorcing our cars means divorcing suburbia and the entire infrastructure associated with it.

How long do you suppose it would take to dismantle 100 years of car culture?


It could be done in less than ten years. No one would lose their jobs either. Go back to the WWII example. No one was let go when GM started making tanks for the war or when the rest of economy went into war production. In 1906 the city of Paterson, NJ burned to the ground and then three weeks later the city was hit with record floods. Instead of moping about in gloom and doom over the disaster they just simply rebuilt the entire city. All the newly unemployed workers picked up shovels, hammers, and saws and rebuilt like nothing happened. There was no outside help either. The mayor even turned all the charity checks, saying they didn't need any help. That is what a can do attitude is capable of and you my friend under-estimate it big time.
User avatar
Novus
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2451
Joined: Tue 21 Jun 2005, 02:00:00

Re: Do you have an 'Acceptable' Problem ?

Unread postby Ludi » Mon 19 Jun 2006, 17:31:17

Novus wrote:Your solution is to get out of debt by quitting your job and dropping out of society so the debt collectors can't collect. Real brilliant Monty. Have you ever stopped to think honestly about what power down really means. I mean really means in the end of all ends. Powerdown = Suicide. Nothing more to see here.


Does that mean you aren't interested in learning what some of us powerdown advocates are actually advocating? You're just saying "I have no idea what you're advocating and I don't want to know."

Please carefully explain to me how powerdown as I present it (see links) equals suicide. Because I seriously do not understand wha tyou are saying.
Ludi
 

Re: Do you have an 'Acceptable' Problem ?

Unread postby Novus » Mon 19 Jun 2006, 17:50:10

It is kind of hard to proove a negative. Maybe you can keep 6.5 billion people alive without industrial technology but I just don't see it. What are you going to do with the raw sewage alone without power? If billions of people have to die to have a power down what makes you so special that you going to be survivor? I am not so arrogant as to think if 5 billion have to die I will be numbered among the survivors.

Powerdown equals mass death
Mass death equals my own death
Powerdown eqauls my own death
Embracing powerdown equals embracing my own death
Embracing my own death eqauls suicide
Therefore; Powerdown equals suicide
User avatar
Novus
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2451
Joined: Tue 21 Jun 2005, 02:00:00

Re: Do you have an 'Acceptable' Problem ?

Unread postby Ibon » Mon 19 Jun 2006, 18:09:50

Novus wrote: Almost anything can be done if you want it bad enough. In WWII America built 50,000 liberty ships. Car manufactures started making tanks. Typewriter manufacturers started making guns. Kitchen appliance makers started making airplane parts. Cosmetics makers started producing bullet casings. There is no reason American, European, and Chinese industry couldn't start pumping out windmills and stirling solar by the tens of thousands. Don't tell me what can't done.

It could be done in less than ten years. No one would lose their jobs either. Go back to the WWII example. No one was let go when GM started making tanks for the war or when the rest of economy went into war production. In 1906 the city of Paterson, NJ burned to the ground and then three weeks later the city was hit with record floods. Instead of moping about in gloom and doom over the disaster they just simply rebuilt the entire city. All the newly unemployed workers picked up shovels, hammers, and saws and rebuilt like nothing happened. There was no outside help either. The mayor even turned all the charity checks, saying they didn't need any help. That is what a can do attitude is capable of and you my friend under-estimate it big time.


Seeing our modern American culture, the citizenry and corporations unified in an undertaking in what you say could be possible would be an astounding achievement. One that I would one day love to see. If you got the citizenry and corporate world to channel capitol and labor into such an undertaking don't you think that this would come about by a deeper understanding of the value of energy and taking it up to a level where it would be cherished and used and conserved as practically a patriotic duty? I fully support everything you advocate in your post. When you would get the citizenry and corporations to this point we would by definition already be having an energy consumption per capita which by every practical definition would be a "powered down" society. So I don't really get where there is an argument here as I don't see anything mutually exclusive about what you and Monte are advocating. You cant get the actions your advocating without already having put energy on a missionary importance which by this very definition would have to include conservation to levels which would be essentially a powered down society. Maybe we are arguing the degree here? Or what?
User avatar
Ibon
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 7609
Joined: Fri 03 Dec 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Volcan, Panama

Re: Do you have an 'Acceptable' Problem ?

Unread postby MonteQuest » Mon 19 Jun 2006, 19:15:54

Novus wrote:
MonteQuest wrote:So, let me get this straight: You have overextended yourself and you live way beyond your means. You are in debt up to your eyeballs, and going deeper into debt every day.


Your solution is to get out of debt by quitting your job and dropping out of society so the debt collectors can't collect. Real brilliant Monty. Have you ever stopped to think honestly about what power down really means. I mean really means in the end of all ends. Powerdown = Suicide. Nothing more to see here.


Did you not read what I wrote?

Someone suggests that you stop living beyond your means, get rid of all your superfluous toys and possessions that are dragging you under, pay off your debts and learn to live within your income.


I said practice "financial responsibility."

We take nitrogen out the air now to make anhydrous ammonia, but we get the H from natural gas.


Hydrogen can be made with any source of electricity using electrolosys. Nitogen can be taken directly from the air.


Yes, that is a given. But what equal or better energy source than NG will you use to make the hydrogen on the scale we use it?

Currently, food cannot be produced by just any source of energy on the scale we need it.


I am tired of letting this slide. So am calling you out, right here and now. I want a source on that. How can you proove a negative like that? Just so we are clear what we are really talking about is fertilizer production. Food is really eating fertilizer.


Source? Common sense. What liquid fuel do you have waiting abundantly in the wings to replace fossil fuels to run tractors, combines, grain dryers, transport trucks, etc. Also, what source do you have to replace petrochemicals?

The Germans never lost a battle for lack of fuel.


No, just a war. Ever hear of Stalingrad? Or the oil in the Caspian seas that they were tryin to get to? CTL loses 40% of the energy as CO2 in the conversion process. It also brings on the peaking of coal in about 35 years.

How long do you suppose it would take to dismantle 100 years of car culture?


It could be done in less than ten years.


You need a serious reality check.
A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
User avatar
MonteQuest
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 16299
Joined: Mon 06 Sep 2004, 02:00:00
Location: Westboro, MO

Re: Do you have an 'Acceptable' Problem ?

Unread postby MonteQuest » Mon 19 Jun 2006, 19:26:23

Novus wrote:Have you ever stopped to think honestly about what power down really means.


Sure I have. For over 35 years. I am now 55. It means restricted per capita energy use, population reduction and downscaling everything we do to a sustainable level. It means more free time and less rat race. It means better quality products in lieu of junk quantity. It means ecological responsibility, resulting in a better environmental balance. It means seriously addressing global warming. It means addressing the gross inequities in the world. It means more global cooperation and less war and strife. It means less competition. It means more community of man and more of a local culture in the production of goods and services.

Suicide? Hardly...
A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
User avatar
MonteQuest
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 16299
Joined: Mon 06 Sep 2004, 02:00:00
Location: Westboro, MO

Re: Do you have an 'Acceptable' Problem ?

Unread postby MonteQuest » Mon 19 Jun 2006, 19:37:36

Novus wrote: Maybe you can keep 6.5 billion people alive without industrial technology but I just don't see it.


Without fossil fuels, or even with fossil fuels, industrial technology cannot avoid the die-off as result of overshoot. It is always the sequel to "overshoot."

Even fusion won't prevent that. Energy is just one of the limiting factors for life on earth. There are arable land limits, top soil, water, and the capacity of the environmental sinks to absorb our production. Even with fusion power, our ability to expand the population is limited without decimation of the carrying capacity of earth.
A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
User avatar
MonteQuest
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 16299
Joined: Mon 06 Sep 2004, 02:00:00
Location: Westboro, MO

Re: Do you have an 'Acceptable' Problem ?

Unread postby Jack » Mon 19 Jun 2006, 20:16:27

Novus wrote:It is kind of hard to proove a negative. Maybe you can keep 6.5 billion people alive without industrial technology but I just don't see it. What are you going to do with the raw sewage alone without power? If billions of people have to die to have a power down what makes you so special that you going to be survivor? I am not so arrogant as to think if 5 billion have to die I will be numbered among the survivors.

Powerdown equals mass death
Mass death equals my own death
Powerdown eqauls my own death
Embracing powerdown equals embracing my own death
Embracing my own death eqauls suicide
Therefore; Powerdown equals suicide


Actually, those of us in the U.S., much of Europe, and some nations in Asia (Japan), along with Australia are more affluent than most in the world. So the death of 5E+09 people does not equate to your death. In fact, their demise might assure you of a more energy rich future.

On the other hand, powerdown could be managed such that everyone used less energy. A mass dieoff could, I suppose, be avoided that way - but it would be uncomfortable for those of us in more developed nations.

The solution is obvious, if one is but willing to grasp it. 8)
Jack
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 4929
Joined: Wed 11 Aug 2004, 02:00:00

Re: Do you have an 'Acceptable' Problem ?

Unread postby TonyPrep » Mon 19 Jun 2006, 20:57:35

Novus wrote:Powerdown equals mass death
Mass death equals my own death
Powerdown eqauls my own death
Embracing powerdown equals embracing my own death
Embracing my own death eqauls suicide
Therefore; Powerdown equals suicide
Well, your logic goes astray at the first step (arguably) and definitely at the second step. Powerdown, if it was embraced wholeheartedly by the world, would not necessarily mean mass premature (which is what I assume you meant) death. And mass death does not equal species extinction so it's possible you may not die (prematurely). Your logic is flawed and, hence, the conclusion is unsound.

Tony
User avatar
TonyPrep
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2833
Joined: Sun 25 Sep 2005, 02:00:00
Location: Waiuku, New Zealand

Re: Do you have an 'Acceptable' Problem ?

Unread postby Zardoz » Mon 19 Jun 2006, 23:13:46

MonteQuest wrote:
Novus wrote:Have you ever stopped to think honestly about what power down really means.


Sure I have. For over 35 years. I am now 55. It means restricted per capita energy use, population reduction and downscaling everything we do to a sustainable level. It means more free time and less rat race. It means better quality products in lieu of junk quantity. It means ecological responsibility, resulting in a better environmental balance. It means seriously addressing global warming. It means addressing the gross inequities in the world. It means more global cooperation and less war and strife. It means less competition. It means more community of man and more of a local culture in the production of goods and services.


Novus, we really need for you to give us your complete, concise definition of "power down". I get the impression that you think it means "power off".

MQ has given us his definition. Now please give us yours. Please define "power down".
"Thank you for attending the oil age. We're going to scrape what we can out of these tar pits in Alberta and then shut down the machines and turn out the lights. Goodnight." - seldom_seen
User avatar
Zardoz
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 6323
Joined: Fri 02 Dec 2005, 03:00:00
Location: Oil-addicted Southern Californucopia

Re: Do you have an 'Acceptable' Problem ?

Unread postby garyp » Tue 20 Jun 2006, 02:55:22

Novus wrote:It is kind of hard to proove a negative. Maybe you can keep 6.5 billion people alive without industrial technology but I just don't see it. What are you going to do with the raw sewage alone without power? If billions of people have to die to have a power down what makes you so special that you going to be survivor? I am not so arrogant as to think if 5 billion have to die I will be numbered among the survivors.

Powerdown equals mass death
Mass death equals my own death
Powerdown eqauls my own death
Embracing powerdown equals embracing my own death
Embracing my own death eqauls suicide
Therefore; Powerdown equals suicide

Thank you.

It was getting a little weird in here. Good to see that at least one other realises some practical realities.

To the rest of you. Please take a trip to the nearest mall. Sit there drinking a coffee and watch the passers by. Put yourself in their shoes, one at a time. Think what their life is like, what's important to them, what they know.

Now imagine telling them they have to grow, and really cook, their own food. Imagine telling them their power supply probably wouldn't be reliable. Their clothes would have to last and they can forget fashion. Tell them they won't be able to afford to travel far, that their life would be limited to the immediate area.

Imagine how they would react. Run their reaction forward a day or two.

My guess is you will find that you will find yourself imagining at least 80% of them saying no, and if you push it a good 50% getting violent. Particularly when you say you're prepared, you have supplies and you're happy with it - that it's a good thing.


There has been a lot of wilfull confusion around here. The question has never been if 'powerdown' isn't a possible reaction to limited oil supplies. Its a question of if enough people would ever take it up voluntarily for it to make a difference. Without that it ISN'T a solution.

I suggest they won't.

We REALLY need solutions that can make a difference, that people can buy into. As Novus points out, these are more likely to be of the shape of massive investment in alternative energies, coupled with acceptable energy efficiency approaches, and some regressive policies towards the third world.

I doubt most here will want to hear this. Emotional investment is in a viewpoint which suggests a green, ecological, vegan future. That most will choose death and destruction over this will be a shock to some.

However when you really think about it, its a brighter and better alternative to what will happen otherwise.
User avatar
garyp
Peat
Peat
 
Posts: 157
Joined: Tue 18 Apr 2006, 02:00:00

Re: Do you have an 'Acceptable' Problem ?

Unread postby Concerned » Tue 20 Jun 2006, 03:04:10

Novus wrote:In NAZI Germany the Germans were able to scale up the Fishor-Tropsch process to meet all their military needs. The time measured to do it was not in years, but in months. The Germans never lost a battle for lack of fuel. Almost anything can be done if you want it bad enough.


Thats total Bullshit, there were chronic fuel shortages for the German war machine.

From not enough fuel to train new pilots to the battle of the bulge where the plan was to continue the advance on captured fuel supplies.
"Once the game is over, the king and the pawn go back in the same box."
-Italian Proverb
User avatar
Concerned
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1571
Joined: Thu 23 Sep 2004, 02:00:00

Re: Do you have an 'Acceptable' Problem ?

Unread postby TonyPrep » Tue 20 Jun 2006, 05:34:34

garyp wrote:We REALLY need solutions that can make a difference, that people can buy into.
Gary, as others have pointed out, there isn't necessarily a solution that fits your bill. There isn't necessarily a solution that allows people to more or less continue life as normal. If there isn't such a solution, it's likely that any strategy you might discover will not be acceptable to the general public or business.

You also have chosen to ignore the other probable tipping points that Monte mentioned. This isn't just an energy problem, it's a problem of growth in population and consumption. Growth is unsustainable but cheap energy has brought on the problems much more quickly than would have otherwise been the case.

The only real solution must involve lack of growth, and even contraction. Powerdown is a way to get there but, as you point out, it is not acceptable to most people. So we will probably just have to wait for nature to take its course, whilst some of us try to prepare ourselves, our families and our communities, as best we can.

Tony
User avatar
TonyPrep
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2833
Joined: Sun 25 Sep 2005, 02:00:00
Location: Waiuku, New Zealand

Re: Do you have an 'Acceptable' Problem ?

Unread postby MonteQuest » Tue 20 Jun 2006, 14:09:48

garyp wrote: Now imagine telling them they have to grow, and really cook, their own food. Imagine telling them their power supply probably wouldn't be reliable. Their clothes would have to last and they can forget fashion. Tell them they won't be able to afford to travel far, that their life would be limited to the immediate area.


But you see, that is the future no matter what we do until we have powered down and reduced the population to a sustainable level. The choice is do you wish to get there by choice or by default?

I agree the people won't accept a powerdown, but that does not make it an invalid solution.

We will hit a wall head on.
A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
User avatar
MonteQuest
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 16299
Joined: Mon 06 Sep 2004, 02:00:00
Location: Westboro, MO

PreviousNext

Return to Peak Oil Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests