Peak Oil News and Message Boards

Wanted: Simple Solutions. Please Apply Within.

Must have low economic costs
with few negative social consequences.
Must work well under stress
in a multi-cultural environment.
Must be politically acceptable to everyone,
offensive to no one.
Must be flexible and willing to travel.
Radical solutions need not apply.

Depletion Economics is an equal opportunity rejecter of dumb ideas.

MrBill wrote:Wanted: Simple Solutions. Please Apply Within.

Must have low economic costs
with few negative social consequences.
Must work well under stress
in a multi-cultural environment.
Must be politically acceptable to everyone,
offensive to no one.
Must be flexible and willing to travel.
Radical solutions need not apply.

Depletion Economics is an equal opportunity rejecter of dumb ideas.

It would need to be made out of wood from a tree that had just fallen down due to some natural cause like lightning, wind, etc.

Heating pads
These are a nice medium term solution to maintain comfort while we still have mains electricity or can be run off of a modest renewable energy setup. They only consume about 40-60 watts which is very modest compared to a 1500W electric space heater or central heating using heating oil or natural gas. Thats a very efficenct way to keep 1 or more people warm when used under the blankets!
I think it meets all your other criteria about cost and cultural offence etc.

Cut CO2 emissions and your nation's carbon footprint today. Refuse to send high level delegations and their legions on minions to international conferences on high food and energy prices.

Australia's foreign minister decried as "obscene" Zimbabwean President Robert Mugabe's participation in the summit. The longtime African leader has presided over the virtual transformation of his country from former breadbasket to agricultural basket case.

Zimbabweans increasingly are unable to afford food and other essentials with agriculture paralyzed by land reform and the world's highest rate of inflation.

The Dutch ministry for overseas development pledged to "ignore" Mugabe during the summit.

EU sanctions against Mugabe because of Zimbabwe's poor human rights record forbid him from setting foot in the bloc's 27 nations, but those restrictions don't apply to UN forums.

Source: Food production must rise 50 per cent by 2030: UN

Home [s]heating[/s] warming can be achieved with rooftop solar thermal collectors and thermal mass storage. These systems can be constructed with off the shelf parts, at a reasonable price, with low maintenance requirements, and keep a couple of rooms from freezing, even in the northern climates.

During summer seasons the same system heats hot water and reduces the heat load absorbed by the house, offering a slight break from sweltering temperatures.

Cooking can be done with the power of the sun with solar box cookers. During rain, and when higher temps, faster speeds, and higher volume is needed, wood fired brick ovens, shared by several families, can do the job.

Food preservation can be done with solar dehydrators. This is technology going back thousands of years. Modern improvements offer greater effectiveness and reliability. Systems can be designed and constructed with scavenged or off the shelf materials.

Rainwater harvesting offers a water source without the energy inputs of pumping. 1" of rain on 1000 sqft of roof offers about 700 gallons of fresh water, enough for a person's consumption for a year.

Indoor lighting is free and effective all day.

Human waste can be composted effectively and locally. Uses for the product include timber, biofuel, and fiber crops.

The population is nothing to worry about. Mother nature will handle it, bringing population to sustainable levels and maintaining them appropriately.

Some electricity will be produced with solar, wind, hydro, human power and directed to critical functions.

That position will most certainly go unfilled. The qualified applicant exists in the imagination only.

"Okay, we agree now on what to do. So, who wants to pay for it? Come on, don't be shy?"

There was little disagreement at the meeting about what measures were needed to resolve the spiraling costs of food and its impact on the world's poor: more food aid; additional seeds and fertilizer for poor farmers; fewer export bans and tariffs that restrict the flow of trade; and more agriculture research to improve crop yields. The problem now is convincing wealthy nations to pay for them, at an estimated cost of up to $30 billion a year.

source: UN official holds rich nations accountable for food shortages

"Climate change and curbing CO2 emissions? Well, umm, yes, of course, THIS $30 billion is in addition to any other ongoing spending commitments. Naturally."

The best solution to high oil prices is high prices

link

Now that is simple.

Grifter wrote:

The best solution to high oil prices is high prices

link

Now that is simple.

Yes, simple, but it comes with an high economic cost and negative social consequences.

The soaring cost of oil is welcome as it sends a clear signal to consumers and firms to curb their use of fuel, the head of the OECD has said.

Speaking at the annual meeting of the world's richest nations, Angel Gurria said it would be "disastrous" if they cut fuel taxes or subsidised prices.

"The best solution to high oil prices is high prices" to cut demand, he said.

OECD members are trying to agree plans to tackle climate change and lessen the effects of the world financial crisis.

Time is running out to negotiate a new post-Kyoto treaty on climate change.

Just because it is the right thing to do does not mean that it can be accepted as a simple solution.

That would just reward oil companies and their shareholders right? While punishing those that can least afford to pay for higher energy prices. Totally unacceptable!

Eat less meat.

MrBill wrote: Totally unacceptable!

Oh yeah, forgot about the acceptable part.

BigTex wrote:Eat less meat.

Not acceptable to the farm lobby as it would lower farm incomes. Especially in areas where mixed farming is more economically advantageous than just 'exporting' grain.* So where's the beef?

*in a previous life I worked on changes to the Crow's Nest Freight Rate agreement on western grain exports that distorted the Prairie farm economy.

MrBill wrote:

BigTex wrote:Eat less meat.

Not acceptable to the farm lobby as it would lower farm incomes. Especially in areas where mixed farming is more economically advantageous than just 'exporting' grain.* So where's the beef?

*in a previous life I worked on changes to the Crow's Nest Freight Rate agreement on western grain exports that distorted the Prairie farm economy.

I'm just talking about a personal decision that many may choose to make in light of cost and other factors. The farm lobby doesn't have to accept it. If people just stop eating meat, meat producers will have to adapt.

***

Using your urban rooftop or suburban lawn to grow a portion of the grains and vegetables in your diet is an option many will choose to pursue. Even if it adds a tiny amount to the overall food supply, this will be a good step.

I can start putting seawater in my gas tank. That should curb greenhouse emissions? Simple, but effective! ; - ))

Ensure that any new housing is built using passive solar design where possible, and local materials for straw, clay lime etc for the walls (they're also a lot cheaper than "traditional" materials).

Extra heating can be catered for with a small woodstove.

MrBill wrote:I can start putting seawater in my gas tank. That should curb greenhouse emissions? Simple, but effective! ; - ))

Wait a second, how is that effective? Wouldn't that render your car non-operable? How is that effective?

I get your point that good simple solutions are hard to come by, but there are probably some good ideas out there.

How about this: instead of seawater, how about putting less CONVENTIONAL gas in your gas tank as a result of driving less?

Everything that reduces consumption is going to reduce economic growth, and I assume that's really the idea--i.e., to live reasonably well at a lower level of consumption, right?

Just a regular old orderly and planned economic contraction. Wait a second, though, isn't our debt based monetary system premised upon sustained growth? Wouldn't a planned contraction be devastating?

Isn't the whole premise behind debt the idea that advances can be taken on future consumption and future consumption will not be too severely compromised because the economic growth fueled by today's consumption will cause the economic pie of the future to be large enough that the advance taken in the form of debt won't compromise the ability to live well in the future as well?

It seems like if we knew for certain that there would be a sustained plateau of economic activity in the future, or a steady gradual decline of economic activity, it would be pure foolishness to borrow money today. How would there be any hope of ever paying it back? There wouldn't.

But wouldn't that trigger some kind of self-reinforcing economic death spiral?

BigTex needs answers.

First change what is "acceptable" by a global shock and awe event that does not appear to be "engineered" and hence no one to blame.

Kingcoal wrote:That position will most certainly go unfilled. The qualified applicant exists in the imagination only.

Sadly I must agree with you.
Common sense is unfortunately a rare commodity these days.
It seems that half the people on this board like to advocate the adoption of ridiculously expensive systems that even by today's standard have yet to be implemented. Where did people get the idea that society will be able to pay for something in a future collapsing world when even today they couldn't afford it!

Like I said before, common sense is a rare commodity.
I think those who have it will have a definite advantage over others who don't. That's perfectly fine with me.

Not gonna happen Mr. Bill as you well know.

My best offering is:

Disassociate business from government.