dolanbaker wrote:It's important the remember that people did react to the US oil peak of the early 1970s, consider what our consumption of oil would be now if nothing had changed and we still had uninsulated houses with oil fired boilers, cars that did 15mpg on a good day, oil fired electricity generating stations and the list goes on...
The report does say " industrial civilisation ", so it isn't too gloomy but it does reinforce the fact that the correct reaction will avoid a catastrophe.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p02v58rd
To end the dominance of throwaway fashion on the high street, we must 'go back to the times of our parent's era when we expected to pay a reasonable price for clothes,' says fashion retail commentator Karen Kay. 'We've been swept away by the pile them high, sell them cheap cycle', she said. Tom Cridland makes sweatshirts which he guarantees for 30 years. Regarding Princess Anne's outfit at Ascot this week, which she previously wore over 30 years ago, he said, 'we need to promote the idea that wearing the same outfit again and again isn't a crime'.
To end the dominance of throwaway fashion on the high street, we must 'go back to the times of our parent's era when we expected to pay a reasonable price for clothes,' says fashion retail commentator Karen Kay. 'We've been swept away by the pile them high, sell them cheap cycle', she said. Tom Cridland makes sweatshirts which he guarantees for 30 years. Regarding Princess Anne's outfit at Ascot this week, which she previously wore over 30 years ago, he said, 'we need to promote the idea that wearing the same outfit again and again isn't a crime'.
Perhaps we could say that thrift went out with the Edwardian era?
Newfie wrote:Graeme wrote:UK Government-backed scientific model flags risk of civilisation’s collapse by 2040The model does not account for the reality that people will react to escalating crises by changing behavior and policies.
medium
"Reality", what reality? It can't be a reality if it's still lol in the future. It's a POTENTIAL, perhaps likely, or perhaps unlikely.
F'ing people can't think critically anymore.
Lore wrote:Modern capitalism would fold like cheap lawn chair if people only purchased what they needed, style went stagnant and things were made to last from one generation to the next.
the growth regime of the past is problematic. The CO2 barrier is only one of many constraints: without absolute decoupling, continued growth on a global scale at historical rates will sooner or later bring us up against barriers such as toxification, exhaustion and pollution of fresh water supplies, and loss of genetic diversity, not to mention shortages of raw materials, or, equivalently, sharply increasing costs of raw-material extraction.
In short, succeeding beyond our wildest expectations with respect to energy will stabilize the climate, but will also exacerbate these other problems and bring us more quickly up against other barriers to the planetary safe operating space—and perhaps barriers that have not yet been identified.
When analysts say we have just 400 billion tonnes of carbon left that we can safely burn to stand a good chance of keeping global warming below 2 degrees, they usually are not factoring in permafrost thaw or Amazon forest die-back effects. That 400 billion tonne allowance should probably be reduced to 300-350 billion tonnes once we take the permafrost and tropical forest feedbacks into account.
And, when we hear that we have just 35 years left at current emissions rates before we cross the dangerous climate change threshold, we should reduce that time limit by five or 10 years, since nature will be quietly boosting our carbon emissions over the coming decades.
That effect hasn’t yet been factored into most of the studies.
Pops wrote:The key concept I think is the conflict between consume and sustain; one meaning use up and one; preserve/perpetuate.
I'd like to see PO.com instigate a new minimalism where itty Bitty houses, tiny jobs, small income, small consumption is cool.
I'll start:
Income last year= $24k (12k/person)
Kids = 3 (well, 3 for DW, 1 for me, LoL)
SqFt = 1,200 / 50x100 lot
miles driven = 4k x 25-30mpg (total guesses, excluding moving)
Theme Song
The solar module consists of the silicon semiconductor surrounded by protective material in a metal frame. The protective material consists of an encapsulant of transparent silicon rubber or butyryl plastic (commonly used in automobile windshields) bonded around the cells, which are then embedded in ethylene vinyl acetate. A polyester film (such as mylar or tedlar) makes up the backing. A glass cover is found on terrestrial arrays, a lightweight plastic cover on satellite arrays. The electronic parts are standard and consist mostly of copper. The frame is either steel or aluminum.
Read more: http://www.madehow.com/Volume-1/Solar-C ... z3g19ZWrvB
Pops wrote:The key concept I think is the conflict between consume and sustain; one meaning use up and one; preserve/perpetuate.
I'd like to see PO.com instigate a new minimalism where itty Bitty houses, tiny jobs, small income, small consumption is cool.
I'll start:
Income last year= $24k (12k/person)
Kids = 3 (well, 3 for DW, 1 for me, LoL)
SqFt = 1,200 / 50x100 lot
miles driven = 4k x 25-30mpg (total guesses, excluding moving)
Theme Song
joewp wrote:Ya know, this whole "Green" thing ticks me off.
First of all, absolutely none of it is sustainable in the least. The way I look at it, the societies of North America before 1492 were more or less sustainable. Yes there were several booms and busts, but they were mostly localized and recovered from them quickly. I would have to say that the way the Northeast tribes, for instance, were living was sustainable over the long term. They even had a policy to consider the impact of their decisions on the seventh generation after them, we worry about next quarter.
Green economy or green growth they probably both mean, I would imagine, solar panels. If you think solar panels are in any way sustainable, you have another think coming. I was just reading about how solar panels are made and one of the ingredients is boron. Here's a nice, sustainable boron mine:
How "green" is that?
And oh yeah, it was also phosphorus, too. Hey, don't we need that stuff to like, uh, fertilize our food? I keep hearing there is not that much of that to go around. You wanna recharge your phone or eat?
And then, titanium dioxide.
But ok, since I'm getting bored, you must be too, so here's the rest of the process:The solar module consists of the silicon semiconductor surrounded by protective material in a metal frame. The protective material consists of an encapsulant of transparent silicon rubber or butyryl plastic (commonly used in automobile windshields) bonded around the cells, which are then embedded in ethylene vinyl acetate. A polyester film (such as mylar or tedlar) makes up the backing. A glass cover is found on terrestrial arrays, a lightweight plastic cover on satellite arrays. The electronic parts are standard and consist mostly of copper. The frame is either steel or aluminum.
Read more: http://www.madehow.com/Volume-1/Solar-C ... z3g19ZWrvB
Sounds to me like there's fossil fuel components in there, and some standard metals. Do I need to post an iron or aluminum mine picture to make my point? Please note that without the extra energy background of fossil fuels, those mines would not exist. Not to mention all the GHG emitted during the mining and manufacturing processes probably cuts in half the "green" claims of solar panels.
Oh, I forgot to add, the silicon has to be refined to 100% pure by heating it up to 2400F... I hope you don't think they're using solar for that heat. More GHGs... green my posterior.
I'm sorry, I think that if you use it and it doesn't grow from the ground every year or so, it's just not sustainable.
Ask me where I got this attitude, go ahead...
I won't keep you in suspense. It's because I've posted and lurked (and read many, many, many of the excellent links you folks supply) for 10 friggin' years.
Thanks for that, by the way.
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.
Return to Peak oil studies, reports & models
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests