kokoda wrote:There is evidence that nations can support huge populations and at least keep them adequately fed, clothed, housed and educated with virtually an agrarian economy (India and China for example).
In other words it is possible to survive in a low tech, fossil fuel reduced state and still survive.
The remaining sources of fuel will have to be heavilly rationed with preference given to food production and distribution. People will need to adapt to growing, making and distributing food and other products locally.
People are going to have to get used to working harder and longer as they start growing, harvesting and transporting food manually.
If they do this then they may survive ... provided that we have left enough time to adapt.
RdSnt wrote:kokoda wrote:There is evidence that nations can support huge populations and at least keep them adequately fed, clothed, housed and educated with virtually an agrarian economy (India and China for example).
In other words it is possible to survive in a low tech, fossil fuel reduced state and still survive.
The remaining sources of fuel will have to be heavilly rationed with preference given to food production and distribution. People will need to adapt to growing, making and distributing food and other products locally.
People are going to have to get used to working harder and longer as they start growing, harvesting and transporting food manually.
If they do this then they may survive ... provided that we have left enough time to adapt.
You actually want to live like the majority of Chinese?
kokoda wrote:There is evidence that nations can support huge populations and at least keep them adequately fed, clothed, housed and educated with virtually an agrarian economy (India and China for example)..
Ludi wrote:kokoda wrote:There is evidence that nations can support huge populations and at least keep them adequately fed, clothed, housed and educated with virtually an agrarian economy (India and China for example)..
"Despite substantial improvement in health and well-being since the country's independence in 1947, malnutrition remains a silent emergency in India, where more than half of all children under the age of four are malnourished, 30 percent of newborns are significantly underweight, and 60 percent of women are anemic. According to the report, malnutrition costs India at least $10 billion annually in terms of lost productivity, illness, and death and is seriously retarding improvements in human development and further reduction of childhood mortality."
-Worldbank
Clearly, India does not have "adequate" nutrition.
Revi wrote:We'll all get to the level of the average Chinese person eventually. That's what is amazing to me. If we went from 75 mbpd to 85mbpd in 5 years. If we are at peak now we'll be down to 75 mbpd in 5 years again. That means we're going to have a reduced lifestyle.
There are some big "if"s there. But what is likely? The things that could help ease the path down are unlikely to happen voluntarily.kokoda wrote:If we were to focus on using energy productively I wonder just how much we could reduce demand before it started to bite economically.
If Hybrids were the only new cars being offered on the market then people would buy Hybrids. If you could only by low wattage light bulbs or goods produced locally then you would still buy them ... the economy would adjust.
garyp wrote:Much capital is made here of the inability/unwillingness of politicians to accept and prepare for peak oil. Some even go so far as to say that they are intentionally lying about it whilst preparing to save their own skins. However stepping back and looking at things dispassionately, the oil doomers, die-off fans and greenies have to take a share of the blame for the situation we face.
If you look at the range of global threats we face today with a significant probability of occurrence:- Climate change
you can see that many are not addressed seriously by the political establishment. Of those that have been, three common factors can be seen:
- Peak oil
- Bird Flu + Other pandemics
- Demographic Timebomb
- Water depletion
- West > East superpower transition
- Global Recession
- CFC/Ozone Hole
- Nuclear/biological war
- MegaTsunami1) the threat is accepted by experts as very certain
Taking CFCs as an example, the threat was understood, the phasing out of CFCs for replacements was painful, but achievable, and since there was no significant impact on the stand of living of the population, it was acceptable to them. Contrast that with climate change - the experts agree, but 'solutions' proposed either fail to be significant enough to have much effect (Kyoto), or are impossible to implement in today's society. Needless to say, significant change is also unacceptable to the broad swathe of the general public, particularly in car dependent cultures.
2) achievable solutions routes have been outlined
3) those routes are acceptable to the general population
To the politician viewing such a list of 'disasters', each threat needs to get in line behind the many smaller threats that cause concern every day. In general a terrorist bomb has a greater mindshare in the general publics' views than climate change. Someone who comes up to the politician saying that this is a significant threat will get heard; but when they start to state that massive change of society is required all they are in fact saying to the politician is that the threat exists, and they don't know how to deal with it. Threats stated without credible routes to solution actually decrease the notice and action that will be taken. Why worry about something you can do nothing about?
Peak oil is falling into the same trap.
Many quite rightly say that the threat is real, and that given human nature (eg lying) it's probably much closer than thought. However by not presenting it in a way that has a credible solution that fulfils all of the above three points, those same people make it less likely that action can and will be taken.
To remove doubt:- die off
are all non solutions that basically just state 'we don't have a clue' - certainly to a politician's ears.
- artificial population reduction
- sustainable living = arable existance
- contraction & convergence
- significant carbon taxing of individuals (probably)
The question I pose to people here is: how can you present both the problem, and a solution that meets the three points - even if it's not a total solution? What is needed is an encapsulated combination that makes a viable whole and that then can be taken up and implemented by the politicians.- Alternative fuels get a bad press here, but they do meet the above requirements.
Can anyone come up here with similar problem<>solution sets in peak oil that could create positive movement?
- "Reducing our dependency on those nasty arabs" may not be a pretty message, but it is acceptable and allows movement in the right direction.
- More nuclear power to produce a better environment is similarly acceptable, if after a moment of confusing paradox.
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.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 22 guests