Peak Oil Production

[Machinus]

1. The Earth CAN handle it. I have given links to graphs showing how and when the Earth has already handled global warming far in excess of what the current level is. Of course that is not to say that humans can handle such an Earth, it is entirely reasonable to conclude that a considerable number of humans would die as a result and the others would almost certainly have a lower quality of life as a result. Save the Earth? No. Save our own sorry backsides, save the lives of our children? YES. I know the latter has more appeal to the masses and am amazed that chose the former desite its lack of truth or effect.

2. Technology odten leads to less power and more precision, less use of energy and less requirement for materials. Fusion would be an improvement on burning brown coal or timber.

3. Whatever we do, Earth will find a new equilibrium (or stable change if you prefer). Humans might not like such a world but that is another point. The Earth is far more able to regenerate that mere two-legged mammals. Global temperatures dropping 10 degrees, no problem, rising 3 degrees, no problem. Earth OK, inhabitants of Earth some not OK.

4. I don't think a single person here has suggested doing nothing, except perhaps you.

5. In fact whilst many people are doing a lot of work to try to improve the situation, big bad industry is also keen on a thing calle efficiency which coincidently tends to help too. Cars drink far less (around half that they did back in the 60s), however more people want cars.

6. See your point 4. How exactly is using much less water, petrol, electricity and gas not exactly what we need to do? Do you think the solution is for everyone, especially western countries to carry on consuming as they do now and blame global warming on developing countries where the people want the same luxuries we enjoy? Can Bush do anything better for the environment than 270 million Americans cutting water/energy requirements by 20-30%? I doubt it.

7. Knowing the problem is a help but doing something about it is more useful. I note with interest that although you doubt the power of the individual, you come to the conclusion that it is the consumer that is the driving force of the problem.

8. The problem will be solved when the costs of not solving it are greater than the costs of solving it. That is not a purely financial equation but in the end I believe it is the people who don't give a damn about the flight of the Amazonian rainforests who are more likely to sort this out.

1,3. I will be clearer about this. Species diversity, complex food chains, large photosynthetic yields, etc., are the natural balance I am talking about. Yes it's true the planet itself will still be here and some plant and animal species will certainly survive whatever apocalypse we end up creating, but that is literally what the apocalypse is - the end of a significant amount of terrestrial life, permanently. It is impossible to care purely about the environment for its own sake. We care because we are dependent. So I am talking about the earth's ability to sustain us and sustain itself in a strong, stable equilibrium. I don't consider the earth to "survive" if 90% of all species become extinct and the global habitat is reduced to a few small and remote locations on the planet.

2. I doubt we will see fusion soon enough to make a difference. I have written a few papers on it and it would be wonderful, but if it happens it won't be in time to save us from our oil addiction. I love technology, but humans as a group abuse it, and damage the environment in the process. Those with the most powerful technology and power exist for the most part in capitalist systems. The majority of these entities have the environment as either a low priority, or no priority at all. Technology, while it has the potential to do a great deal of good, instead accelerates the rates of destruction.

4,5,6,7. I think its laughable to consider leaving the processes of conservation in the hands of the individual. Again, you are considering the ideal situation, which is very far from reality. People certainly could make a difference if they wanted to, or cared at all. But people don't care. They will not be able to reverse the trends of waste and pollution that exist. Even if everyone in the world took conservation seriously in their personal lives, commerce and industry would still do huge amounts of damage to the earth. I have serious doubts about the collective ability of people to deliberately contribute. They must be forced to, as well as all industry.

8. This is wrong. By the time the "costs" are greater, there may not be a chance to do anything about it. We may already have passed the opportunity to reverse the damage and preserve the possibility of a stable and diverse ecosystem, and therefore the survival of the human species. There may not be much left to "sort out" when the general population is forced to deal with the problems.

Saying things like "humans have always been this way" and "the earth can handle it" demonstrates a complete ignorance of environmental science.

I'm sorry, but the first statement and the second by no means imply eachother. While I have uttered the first one, I have never said anything remotely like the second one. I hardly think I am ignorant regarding environmental science, having studied it for six years running, and having recieved both a cum laude Master's degree and a sustainabled development certificate in the subject.

The first statement is simply true, no matter what you say. You may attach a different meaning to it than I do or something, but humanity has never been one with nature. Proof of this abounds. Aditionally, I have not said 'the earth can handle it' in the way that you imply. All I said was that the earth as a planet will survive is. The earth's current ecosystem might very well not.

I really didn't mean this in the way you have interpreted it, and I didn't mean to imply there was a connection between those two statements. I don't think humans have ever been one with nature either. But our behaviour in the last 200 years is completely new to the environment. Humans have not always been unconcerned about the environment while also being threatening to its stability. There is a common mindset that the earth is so strong and resilient that lowly humans could never destroy anything, or create a problem that nature won't solve on its own. Humans at this point in time are a genuine threat to other species and the ecosystem as a whole; a frequent escape from this problem is just to question whether or not it is really a problem. Those two statements represent this mindset.

[Dozer]

People certainly could make a difference if they wanted to, or cared at all. But people don't care. They will not be able to reverse the trends of waste and pollution that exist. Even if everyone in the world took conservation seriously in their personal lives, commerce and industry would still do huge amounts of damage to the earth. I have serious doubts about the collective ability of people to deliberately contribute. They must be forced to, as well as all industry.

But who can force them if not individuals? By themselves, neither the mass of people nor the industry is likely to change. So, changes have to be induced by an "outside force" and we have no other force than ourselves. Write, discuss, argue, proclaim the things that should change to the people that can change them. That is what we as individuals should do, and that is the only way we as individuals can have an influence.

Dozer

[Machinus]

People certainly could make a difference if they wanted to, or cared at all. But people don't care. They will not be able to reverse the trends of waste and pollution that exist. Even if everyone in the world took conservation seriously in their personal lives, commerce and industry would still do huge amounts of damage to the earth. I have serious doubts about the collective ability of people to deliberately contribute. They must be forced to, as well as all industry.

But who can force them if not individuals? By themselves, neither the mass of people nor the industry is likely to change. So, changes have to be induced by an "outside force" and we have no other force than ourselves. Write, discuss, argue, proclaim the things that should change to the people that can change them. That is what we as individuals should do, and that is the only way we as individuals can have an influence.

Dozer

Let me make myself clear about what I am saying. I do not believe that we can preserve the environment by taking it upon ourselves to recycle and conserve in the quantities that we encounter on a daily basis, in our personal lives. This is what I mean when I refer to individuals. I DO believe that we can preserve the environment by LEGISLATION which forces manufacturers to abide by standards of biodegradability and ecological impact, and consumers to abide by standards of conservation and recycling. This is what I mrean when I refer to being "forced." In my opinion, the only chance we have is to adopt rigid international manufacturing and consumer standards. I don't have any faith in the power of individuals to make a significant difference.

[dandan]

An individual cannot succeed if he believes that he cannot.

Society is the sum of individuals. If we require society to consume less, we need individuals to consume less. If we want industry to listen, individuals not buying certain products will cause faster change than relying on politicians who, to a large extent, are sponsored by industry to make new legislation to curb environmentally damaging behaviour.

The success, if any, of organisations like Greenpeace is not in getting governments to pass laws but in getting enough individual action to cause the oil companies to try to look greener. And whilst trying to look greener, these companies have become major investors in alternative energy (I believe BP is the world's largest solar energy supplier). And these major investors in alternative energy have recognised that oil, at some point, will either become too expensive or too environmentally unacceptable (the two will probably go hand-in-hand) and if they want to continue being suppliers of energy, they will need some energy to supply.

You correctly identify the consumer as the driving force of excess. You point out the need for awareness of the problem. Surely you can see that each individual is the consumer, each voter is a lobbyist, each shopper is a customer. If I want a problem solved, the FIRST thing I should do (not that I always do but I should do) is to do what I can to solve it. If the problem remains unsolved then at the very least I am not part of the problem. And everyone who fails to be part of the solution remains part of the problem.

Life has taught me many things, amongst the most useful is this:

Waiting for someone else to solve a problem is a good recipe for waiting.

[Dr. Sylvan]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8852127/site/newsweek/
Zero Energy Homes now in use in California; more on the way.

Owned, pessimists.

Edit: Also, later, I ran into this on the Wall Street Journal editorial page:

The issue of climate change urgently needs to be brought down from the level of theology to what we actually know. It is, of course, quite likely that the greenhouse effect has to some extent contributed to global warming -- but we simply do not know to what extent. The insistence that global warming is primarily the consequence of human activity leaves scant room for variation in solar intensity or cyclical phenomena generally.

Over the ages, climate has varied. Generally speaking, the Northern Hemisphere has been warming since the end of the Little Ice Age in the 17th century. Most of the global warming observed in the 20th century occurred between 1900 and 1940, when the release of greenhouse gasses was far less than later in the century. Between 1940 and 1975, temperatures fell -- and scientists feared a lengthy period of global cooling. The reported rise in temperatures in recent decades has come rather suddenly -- probably too suddenly given the relatively slow rise of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

We must always bear in mind that the earth's atmosphere remains a highly complex thermodynamic machine. Given its complexities, we need to be modest in asserting what we know. Knowledge is more than speculation.

Anyone? Bram? ...Buehler?

[BigMac]

As it was in a newspaper i have to say it has to be true.

As said before i do not know if one or the other is the result of anything. Both camps in such a discussion will have professors that will state the complete opposite with good facts to support it. As long as the discussion is this divided, chances of getting a global solution are almost zero. That leaves me with the conclusion:

If you want to have them do something about the environment, there is no better place than to start with yourself. Everything else is sideline babbling. Unless in the near future some compelling proof will be available that leaves no room for discussion.

[Machinus]

We are raping the earth, whether or not it is through global warming. We know what greenhouse gases do, hence their name. Whether or not they are completely responsible for the temperature increase is of course difficult to assert. The fact that we can't "prove" that greenhouse gases are the major route to increased planetary temperatures is insignificant. We have the 'knowledge' that we are disrupting and ending many natural cycles through our own technology, and there is NO debate about it. Focusing on the uncertain nature of one aspect of our influence on nature, when we know for sure many other aspects of a solid and consistent theory, basically boils down to the neocon philosophy of diversion.

The science is there. It has been there for some time. Without the capacity to understand it, or the will to accept it, it is impossible to make sense.

[dandan]

We are raping the earth, whether or not it is through global warming. We know what greenhouse gases do, hence their name. Whether or not they are completely responsible for the temperature increase is of course difficult to assert. The fact that we can't "prove" that greenhouse gases are the major route to increased planetary temperatures is insignificant. We have the 'knowledge' that we are disrupting and ending many natural cycles through our own technology, and there is NO debate about it. Focusing on the uncertain nature of one aspect of our influence on nature, when we know for sure many other aspects of a solid and consistent theory, basically boils down to the neocon philosophy of diversion.
The science is there. It has been there for some time. Without the capacity to understand it, or the will to accept it, it is impossible to make sense.

You are correct is stating that there is virtually no debate about it. Frankly there should be. The diversionists DO have a point, there HAVE been other periods of global warming that were not caused by humans. Within the recent period of global warming, there have been spells of cooling and localised (Eastern USA) cooling rather than warming despite the constant effect of industrialisation. I think it can be shown, to a sufficiently high probability (although quite possibly not proven) that the effects of man are the key driver of recent climate change and consequently are causing further climate change with economically-damaging consequences. People believe what they want to believe unless convinced otherwise and the lack of debate means few are changing their opinion on this.

As I have pointed out, it is not necessary for politicians and industry to accept 'global warming' (warming as a consequence of our actions) in order to do something about it. Voters and consumers CAN and DO cause change. Each person can act to reduce their effect on the environment. Which is worse - a person who doesn't care about the problem and does nothing or someone who cares but despite this still does nothing? If you are not part of the solution, YOU are part of the problem.

[Machinus]

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/12/science/earth/12climate.long.html?pagewanted=print

[Vegeta2711]

Let's not play 'Find the link!' as it generally contributes... oh... nothing to the discussion. Why? Because on a topic like this you could easily find  sources on either side, especially if you take more slanted media into account.

[Machinus]

Let's not play 'Find the link!' as it generally contributes... oh... nothing to the discussion. Why? Because on a topic like this you could easily find  sources on either side, especially if you take more slanted media into account.

Actually I'm not trying to find a source that "backs me up" - I don't need scientific validation from this forum. It was published in today's times, and a recent development would be very beneficial for readers of this thread.

Your last post however was clearly invaluable for the edification of this thread's readers.

[Vegeta2711]

Let's not play 'Find the link!' as it generally contributes... oh... nothing to the discussion. Why? Because on a topic like this you could easily find  sources on either side, especially if you take more slanted media into account.

Actually I'm not trying to find a source that "backs me up" - I don't need scientific validation from this forum. It was published in today's times, and a recent development would be very beneficial for readers of this thread.

Your last post however was clearly invaluable for the edification of this thread's readers.

I wasn't singling you out, ass. I was stating that I've seen a lot of discussions get bogged down by just linking to different sources on each side. Once you post a link with minimal or no statements along with it, you stop having discussion, you have a little 'lolz, I CAN POST MORE LINKIES BACKING ME THAN j00'.

Really why are you even posting on this thread? All of your posts are just telling everyone how awful the world is and how we can do nothing to help it indiviually, which is decidely the wrong attitude to have in the first place.

Your last post however was clearly invaluable for the edification of this thread's readers.

Location: Irony
Population: You

[Dr. Sylvan]

Regardless, I was revisiting this thread to post a link to the same basic story in The Economist ( http://economist.com/science/displayStory.cfm?story_id=4269858 ), because it's an important scientific clarification. These aren't random chump professors or cranks either; it's about completely new, peer-reviewed articles in Science, which is where all the cool kids want to get their papers published (as I understand it). It talks about experimentation that clears up what used to be a major inconsistency between the models and the real data---anybody who wants to argue with an anti-global warming person based on the evidence should know about this. (I should know, Bram and I had a nice discussion on this very site a number of months ago where I was taking the anti-warming side!)

Anyway, play nice. Nobody's fightin' here.

[Bram]

As it was in a newspaper i have to say it has to be true.

Boy, I really hope that was sarcasm :-/

Anyway, Phil: I totally agree with the excerpt from the Wall Street Journal you posted. We need to know more. We need quantative data. We need to perform actual science instead of rehashing age-old arguments on both sides of the issue. There's nothing wrong with having an opinion on the issue (the unbiased scientist is ofcourse a myth) but researchers should keep an open mind at all times and allow themselves to be convinced if the evidence against their beliefs is convincing.

[Limbo]

As this thread is so long, I could reply to numerous contributions / statements and create an enormous post. To prevent this, I will instead post just my own opinion on this subject. For me, this "problem" / discussion can be broken down in several pieces:

1- There is the question if we will run out of energy as a general source. Will we have burned up all oil, coal, etc. before we have found a decent replacement (sun, air, water as an energy-source)?

2- There is the question if we will (be able to) destroy the earth entirely (a definition of this would be to destroy earth in such a way that there is no possibility for a healthy "metagame" when we are "done").

3- There is the question if the burning / usage of fossil fuel-sources has a large (if any) effect on the temperature on earth.

Will we run out of energy?
Short answer: No.
My economic thought on this is that in order to shift to other energy-sources then the fossil ones we are using now, we need to use as much energy as we can. The more energy we consume, the faster prices on oil based products will rise, the faster it becomes feasible to start using different energy sources. If we use more oil per year, we will change to other sources quicker and as an effect there will be more oil left in the ground in the end, which (IF the green-house effect exists AND has major influence on the climate on earth) should be good for the environment. So hit the accelerator while waiting for traffic lights, leave your windows open in the winter and always leave the water running.

My more sensible though is that we should try to decrease our energy-consumption. But for me that is more of a moral values thing, like holding open a door for a woman, being a vegetarian (which I am not btw) or not robbing a bank. On average, people tend to think their moral values are right / best and as a result they try to get other people to believe in the same values. Moderation is more accepted then "grabbing what you can", and I think this can be applied to energy-consumption.

On a sidenote, I have visited numerous presentations during the course of my study (going into my final year to become a master in applied physics) that show that other promising energy-sources are being developed. Some companies are close to printing solar cells on plastics, drastically decreasing the production cost. Other such technologies are also in development, so replacemtents are coming...

Can we, the human "civilization", destroy the earth's metagame entirely?
Short answer: No.
There is small-scale and large scale influence. Small scale influence is usually viewed as non-problematic. Although some species can be hunted to extinction by another species, this usually is limited to one animal / plant / whatever.
Large scale influence is viewed as possibly catastrophic on the earth's metagame, as for example the behavior of the human race at the moment. As so nicely shown by the nice little 10km-in-diameter-meteor that crashed into earth about 65 million years ago to kill about 70% of all existing species at that moment: Earth will be fine...eventually. Untill the sun swallows it in about a gazillion years (the sun keeps expanding as it keeps losing energy, and as a result it will swallow earth someday at 5.17 PM on a sunny afternoon). Heh, very sunny indeed. Pun intended?[/color]
So maybe humans will destroy a lot of the animals / plantlife on earth. Is this ok: no. Is this a problem that will never be solved by earth: no. Earth and animal / plant life will survive, be it with or without us or our assistance.  And remember we as humans need to destroy the sun before it destroys us, so we can save the animals that are left...

Subquestion: Will the human race survive long enough to build decent spaceships to "conquer other solar systems"?
Short answer: Maybe.
Time will tell. It is human mentality to usualy start solving problems whent the third deadline is passed, and somehow this still works out fine. I am sure humans (as a society) will adapt before it is too late, or fix the problem even after it is "too late".

Does the green-house effect exist / influence the climate?
Short answer: Exist: yes, Influence: probably not.
I am sure the greenhouse effect exists. But I know there are so many factors that influence the climate that it isn't funny, that I do not know if the effect is so large or small as some people want us to believe. My gut-feeling is that its effect is only minimal compared to other effects (solar-strength variatons, oceanic currents, volcanic eruptions, etc. etc.). At the moment, I do not believe the human race has gathered enough reliable data to be able to predict climate changes.

I can't help replying to this:

Mr Smith in the matrix was right about one thing. We are breeding like a virus depleting our home of all its resources.

This would be a good place to note that, generally speaking, the more industrialized a country is, the fewer children the average citizen tends to have.

The "problem" for an industrialized country is that there are more citizens on average per square km or mile. Also, the life-expectancy for those people tends to be quite a lot higher. So although less babies are born, more people live there on average.
Touche'. Good point.
-Matt[/color]

[BigMac]

Bram you know me. I work at a newspaper, so i have to state that the newspapers are always right. (my boss is watching over my shoulder so i have to type this) It is for that reason at my newspaper we have a special logo to recover from "mistakes".

So yeah, there was a certain amount of sarcasm there if you want to spot it. But you of all people, i would think you would understand me my friend