An Inconvenient Truth

[Tarlam!]

Well most Europeans rely on their car less than Americans, at least for country to country travel. That is done almost exclusively by air or rail. I wish we had more high speed rail in this country. I love driving my car and everything, but if I could get on a 150mph bullet train to Chicago every weekend I'd be all about it.

They pay by the litre too.

This is simply incorrect. You need to see the Motorway system when school breaks. All forms of transport strongly used.

One problem is everything has become so inexpensive. 25 years ago, travelling was expensive. Today, I can book a flight to London for 40 USD. I can take my family to Portugal for 2 weeks, 3 star with breakfast for 1000 all up. That's just ridiculous.

What nobody has yet discussed in the distribution of wealth (natural resources). As it stands, the "western" societies account for 86% of consumption. This figure comes from a group of Greens called The Natural Step (TNS). Far from being militant, they realize completely turning the planet Green in, say, one year would mean the end of civilization as we know it, lead to war, world hunger etc.

It is not economically feasible to just stop polluting. TNS stated goal is to contribute to leading industry to become sustainable, but with a reasonable time frame. Great bunch of Greenies, actually.

But they pose a really scary question that is REAL, and it is far more threatening than the Global Warming discussion, or the next Ice Age. They ask the question "what happens when the rest of the world wants to consume as much as the current rich countries?".

Look at China. They have increased their contracts for crude and refined oil and they are directly responsible for the gas prices. Their industry has taken so much steel out of our pipelines that we have incurred unsurpassed price hikes and lead times. They are beginning to consume more and more. Look at India. Same thing and they recently signed new trade agreement with China.

The axis of consumption is shifting and this is the scariest threat to our societies. And we are all encouraging it by demanding consumer goods at cheaper and cheaper prices. We don't care that stuff is made by child laborers.

[mraynrand]

We don't care that stuff is made by child laborers.

That's just not true. I don't care, but you obviously do. 12 hours of work everyday keeps the kids off the streets, helps them get a good sound night of sleep, and keeps them from bugging me when I'm trying to enjoy my scotch. Plus, the cost of my nose hair trimmer went down from 15 to 12 bucks. How can you beat that?


But seriously, Tarlam, we care.

[HarveyWallbangers]

Tarlam,

Those are good points about third world consumption, and it is a problem to worry about. I think the rest of the stuff will take care of itself because of many factors. Just like we no longer pollute like we did in the industrial revolution --because of technological advancements, political pressure, etc. The big problem is that third world countries will be going through their own little industrial revolution very shortly. How will deal with that is a big concern.

[Tarlam!]

Harv, thanks. I think Ray missed my point a tad.

I am scared to death that my kids will be fighting the Chinese and the Indians for a gallon of gas.

Look, I am all for equal rights. Actually, that's bullshit. I am all for my kids being better situated that any body else's kids. Next, I want all their friends to be well situated, too.

I do not want Chinese kids well situated at the expense of my and your kids!

How fucked does that sound! I wish we could all be well situated, but I just see winners and losers. Fuck. What did I eat for brekfast this morning????

[jack's smirking revenge]

Tarlam,

Those are good points about third world consumption, and it is a problem to worry about. I think the rest of the stuff will take care of itself because of many factors. Just like we no longer pollute like we did in the industrial revolution --because of technological advancements, political pressure, etc. The big problem is that third world countries will be going through their own little industrial revolution very shortly. How will deal with that is a big concern.

I guess that's the point I've been trying to make with the posts about water consumption and population growth. Population growth will put a strain on the available resources on the planet. Technology may open up availability of resources, but advancement happens at a snails crawl because of greed and apathy. I don't believe that a country such as the U.S. can adapt to the coming threat of limited resources in a time frame of 50 years, when the planet is supposed to carry the load of a couple more billion people. As other countries step up their demand for resources to equal the U.S., we will DEFINITELY face a global crisis.

tyler

[mraynrand]

Technology may open up availability of resources, but advancement happens at a snails crawl because of greed and apathy. I don't believe that a country such as the U.S. can adapt to the coming threat of limited resources in a time frame of 50 years, when the planet is supposed to carry the load of a couple more billion people. As other countries step up their demand for resources to equal the U.S., we will DEFINITELY face a global crisis.

Tyler, I don't agree with you on a number of your views.

First, advancement isn't happening at a snail's pace, by my estimation. in some areas of technology, it is screaming fast.

Second, advancement DOES happen because of 'greed' (or rather, I would call it 'incentive'). I would argue alternatively that Prices and Costs are the cause of what you term 'apathy.' In the 80s, there was more prospecting for Oil in the U.S. becauseo of OPEC prices and more oil was discovered. But OPEC was able to increase production and drop prices to prevent competitors from bringing their oil sources on line (Other factors were involved as well). Now, the world is reaching or is at top oil production, if you assume no new massive exploration or construction of refineries. The current high prices will now actually affect real behavior and OPEC probably can't thwart efforts to either increase oil exploration, oil recovery from shale, or production of alternative sources. Innovation was not pursued aggressively in this area because the products were losers, economically.

Also, once the motive for innovation increases, I think the U.S. is one of, if not the best place, for it to happen. If you look at the changes in this country from 1950 to 2000, I think 50 years is more than enough time for this coutry to adapt to any challenges. If you think about it, we could have massive production of Nuke plants and electric cars over the next ten years alone, solving any energy shortage. If the conditions are right to increase incentive to automakers (demand from the public, as you are starting to see for hybrids) and political will to allow licencing of Nuke plants, it can happen very quickly. There's very little innovation even required. If you fear the oil companies 'preventing' such changes, I think you're in error. These companies have the capital to invest in the new technology and they will do so if they see the writing on the wall.

And about the population problem. As the two largest countries China and India modernize, family sizes will drop dramatically and you'll see the population curve flatten even more.

I was at a seminar in 1991 where Paul Ehrlich estimated the carrying capacity of the planet at 10 billion and that we'd reach that by 2005-10. He has since refigured his numbers and the 1991 numbers were reconfigured from his late 60s numbers estimating mass famines by the 80s. As I wrote before, you can't really predict technology and societal changes that will radically alter how we live in the future, but you can predict that there will be massive changes. There is a liklihood of major conflict over resources with an aggressive expanding China, but it's very likely that they will experience massive internal changes and the U.S. will adapt to the 'energy challenges.' Together these events will prevent apocalypse.

[jack's smirking revenge]

Technology may open up availability of resources, but advancement happens at a snails crawl because of greed and apathy. I don't believe that a country such as the U.S. can adapt to the coming threat of limited resources in a time frame of 50 years, when the planet is supposed to carry the load of a couple more billion people. As other countries step up their demand for resources to equal the U.S., we will DEFINITELY face a global crisis.

Tyler, I don't agree with you on a number of your views.

First, advancement isn't happening at a snail's pace, by my estimation. in some areas of technology, it is screaming fast.

Second, advancement DOES happen because of 'greed' (or rather, I would call it 'incentive'). I would argue alternatively that Prices and Costs are the cause of what you term 'apathy.' In the 80s, there was more prospecting for Oil in the U.S. becauseo of OPEC prices and more oil was discovered. But OPEC was able to increase production and drop prices to prevent competitors from bringing their oil sources on line (Other factors were involved as well). Now, the world is reaching or is at top oil production, if you assume no new massive exploration or construction of refineries. The current high prices will now actually affect real behavior and OPEC probably can't thwart efforts to either increase oil exploration, oil recovery from shale, or production of alternative sources. Innovation was not pursued aggressively in this area because the products were losers, economically.

Also, once the motive for innovation increases, I think the U.S. is one of, if not the best place, for it to happen. If you look at the changes in this country from 1950 to 2000, I think 50 years is more than enough time for this coutry to adapt to any challenges. If you think about it, we could have massive production of Nuke plants and electric cars over the next ten years alone, solving any energy shortage. If the conditions are right to increase incentive to automakers (demand from the public, as you are starting to see for hybrids) and political will to allow licencing of Nuke plants, it can happen very quickly. There's very little innovation even required. If you fear the oil companies 'preventing' such changes, I think you're in error. These companies have the capital to invest in the new technology and they will do so if they see the writing on the wall.

And about the population problem. As the two largest countries China and India modernize, family sizes will drop dramatically and you'll see the population curve flatten even more.

I was at a seminar in 1991 where Paul Ehrlich estimated the carrying capacity of the planet at 10 billion and that we'd reach that by 2005-10. He has since refigured his numbers and the 1991 numbers were reconfigured from his late 60s numbers estimating mass famines by the 80s. As I wrote before, you can't really predict technology and societal changes that will radically alter how we live in the future, but you can predict that there will be massive changes. There is a liklihood of major conflict over resources with an aggressive expanding China, but it's very likely that they will experience massive internal changes and the U.S. will adapt to the 'energy challenges.' Together these events will prevent apocalypse.

Then I will agree to disagree with you (though I don't believe in any sort of "apocalypse"--I just believe the United States will slip quickly from its perch as the "world power"). Great points though.

tyler

[Tarlam!]

Welcome to FYI, l & g.

[jack's smirking revenge]

I don't have time for an FYI-length debate about stuff. I truly don't. Thus, props to you for a great debate mraynrand. As I said, you made some very interesting points.

tyler

[No Mo Moss]

Why must we have so much sympathy for the oil companies. With every other product and market you either adapt or go belly up. Not with them though. They get to rape middle america and post record profits while still getting sympathy.

what gets me is all the blame shifted to the oil companies, by the gov't and politicians. after the oil wars the gov't mandated that oil companies must mark up gasoline 9%. if the cost of Gas is $1.00 they oil company must charge at a minimum $1.09. they make 9 cents per gallon. now lets say the price of gas jumps to $2.00 per gallon. that same oil company must charge 2.18 per gallon. and in return double there earnings!!! but lets look at those numbers from a diffrent angle. sales tax in my area is 6%. in the first example the gov't made $.06 for every gallon and in the second example they made $.12 for every gallon. DOUBLING their earnings!!! and they didn't have to do anything. no pumping, no trasporting, no refining, no drilling, no research. nothing. and that is just the sales tax. by the time you add all the other taxes and fees we are paying for gas, it is the gov't that is making more money on gas than the terrible oil companies. how come in this time of crisis and high gas prices the gov't isn't repealing any of the taxes and fees they place on gas?? who is really raping middle america??

In MN they are trying to repeal the state tax of 6 cents for one year. In its place they would like to use money from the 2005 tax relief fund to use for the roads.

Temporary relief I guess.

[mraynrand]

I don't have time for an FYI-length debate about stuff. I truly don't. Thus, props to you for a great debate mraynrand. As I said, you made some very interesting points.

tyler

Same to you.

[Little Whiskey]

In MN they are trying to repeal the state tax of 6 cents for one year. In its place they would like to use money from the 2005 tax relief fund to use for the roads.

Temporary relief I guess.

thats awful nice of them since the taxes and fees on a gallon of gas is upwards of $0.50!! at least in my area.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Suddenly, the earth was no longer cooling, it was warming. The ice caps were not growing, they were melting. The ozone layer was not thickening, it was thinning and a hole developed, which is growing. Science scrambled for an explanation. How about CO2? The chemistry works. That MUST be it!

But is it? Good science will look for explanations that are consistent with the phenomena of 35 years ago and the phenomena of today. I've not yet seen anything that does that, except naturally occuring ebs and flows, the alteration of which by man is minimal. Society has not changed enough in the last 50 years to have reversed global cooling and an oncoming ice age to global warming instead. If we were responsible for global cooling, how are we now responsible for global warming? If we are responsible for global warming, how could we have been responsible for global cooling just 35 years ago?

Sorry for delayed response, but just listened to radio show about global warming which got me to thinking.

Well, the "global cooling" phenomena proclaimed prior to the 1970's is still held to be true. The deflection of radiation mitigates the greenhouse effect. Scientific data and understanding moves forward, and a solid consensus now exists that global warming over-rides global cooling.

It's this consensus that I was just looking into. I found that it is pure myth that the scientific community is divided on the existence of human-caused global warming. The contrarians in climatology are rare.

"Science Magazine", THE journal of record for the scientific community, did a fair and complete survey of 928 articles from scientific journals (with keywords "Climate change.") They found (shockingly) that 100% of the articles indicated a human factor in global warming. See The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change

The National Academy of Sciences is clear and unambiguous on global warming. See http://www4.nationalacademies.org/on...e?OpenDocument

Ten years ago there was a legitimate debate on the existence of human-created global warming. But the argument is over now. I'm angry that people still get away with dismissing the issue by claiming significant scientific uncertainty.

[Scott Campbell]

All I have to say is, how can I profit from this?

Can I buy some cold oceanfront property in Newfoundland and set it up to be the next South Beach?

[SkinBasket]

"Science Magazine", THE journal of record for the scientific community, did a fair and complete survey of 928 articles from scientific journals (with keywords "Climate change.") They found (shockingly) that 100% of the articles indicated a human factor in global warming.

With all due respect Blue... no shit?

Of course humans are "a" factor in climate change. I don't think anyone questions that. Cows fucking farting are "a" factor. A Chinaman lighting up a cigarette in Chengdu is "a" factor. That 10 second spray of AqauNet your mom used to lure your dad into the backseat where you were conceived was "a" factor. That dead bird in my back yard decaying is "a" factor.

The questions that are being asked by reasonable people are: How large of a factor are humans (in other words, are they "the" factor)? and Does "climate change" equate to "catastophic natural disaster" as folk like Al Gore like to assert as absolute truth.

People like Gore seem to find pleasure in defining the "human factor" as big business, conservatives driving SUVs, and most importantly, republican administrations and then predicting unspecified "global catastrophies" as a direct result of the senseless and evil acts of those involved in the "human factor." It is easy to demonize, afterall, when you don't include yourself as one of the demons.