more scary stuff

[solops]

We are running out of hydrocarbons, but the process will be a long one. During that process there will undoubtably be shifts in global power as money flows change directions. As far as I can tell, the public hasn't a clue as to the situation, mainly because the press and politicians are so ignorant of the situation. They quite humanly see only the parts of it that directly effect them.

I Subscribed to the Wall Street Journal for many years. I particularly enjoyed the middle column of the front page which often had "in-depth" reviews of situations in industries such as publishing, leather, fresh-produce, fishing, etc. I felt like I was getting a good, "inside" picture of how the world really worked. Then they did an article on the oil & gas business. I was badly shaken by the sheer ignorance dispayed in the article. Then I realised that if the paper was that far off on MY industry, it was quite likely to be equally as wrong about the others and my "education" was so much bushwah. I let my subscription expire as I contemplated world decision-makers making laws and policy on the basis of equally flawed material prepared by well credentialled experts who hadn't a clue as to the reality of the matter...insofar as anyone can wrap their minds around such complex matters. I certainly have not seen any sensible laws or discussion in any country. The best discussions, which often have special agendas, are found in the industry's trade journals. These sources are carefully ignored by the rest of the media. The energy "news" of today was discussed a year or more ago in print in publications such as The Oil & Gas Journal or Offshore Engineer.

Sigh....

[geoschmo]

Originally posted by rextorres:
Whether this guys a crack pot or not is moot. Civilization's collapse - for whatever reason - is inevitable. When it happens is the real question. This guy just seems to think it's going to happen in the next 5 - 10 years.

Well, you certainly aren't the only one that thinks that, but I don't really see why it's inevitable. Sure change is inevitable, soceities are constantly evolving. But that doesn't neccesarily mean a total collapse of civilization is a guaranteed occurance. Something drastic like the collapse suggested here is certainly possible. But inevitable?

[Paul1980au]

You know i think improving technology levels in terms of recycling and energy efficent technologies will slow these problems i mean by banning CFCs the ozone hole is recovering. If it becomes enough of a problem science and commercial opportunities will exist and answers will be found - hydrogen energy technology is the next boom tech and combine biotech, nanotechnology and increasing computing technolgoy to run science simulations etc this will aid in improving the situations.

[Fyron]

The ozone hole was caused by a volcanic eruptions in Antarctica during the 1980s and 1990s! It was most certainly not _caused by_ our pollution. The reason why the hole has decreased in size is because the effects of the 1991 eruption of Mt Pinatubo have slowy been filtered out.

http://www.gsfc.nasa.gov/topstory/20...04volcano.html

http://www.theozonehole.com/ozonehole2001.htm

http://www.antarctica.ac.uk/About_BA...eruptions.html

http://randalcarr.tripod.com/pinatubo/

[ February 12, 2004, 01:41: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

[PvK]

Hmm, at those links I see links of erruptions to ozone depletion, but also:

First site (NASA):

"Climate change combined with aftereffects of large volcanic eruptions will contribute to more ozone loss over both poles," Tabazadeh said. "This research proves that ozone recovery is more complex than originally thought."

"... the early and rapid growth of the Antarctic ozone hole in the early 1980s may have been influenced in part by a number of large volcanic eruptions ..."

Second site (ozonehole.com):

"However, man-made chemicals such as CFCs or chlorofluorocarbons are now known to have a very dramatic influence on Ozone levels too. CFCs a were once widely used in aerosol propellants, refrigerants, foams, and industrial processes."

Third site (Cambridge):

"despite the provisions of the Montreal Protocol, the atmosphere will contain enough CFCs that the ozone layer will be at risk of other events of severe ozone loss at mid-latitudes for at least fifty years."

Fourth site looks to be only about volcanoes anyway.

That is, it would be easy to misinterpret what Fryon said, to think that human pollution is not a contributing cause to ozone depletion. It would seem it is a cause, in addition to volcanoes.

PvK

[PvK]

Personally, I'd say the loss of petroleum and nuclear fuel would be good goals, if done without a catastrophe. They're both pretty foul. So would the reduction in the human population and land use by a factor of 10 or more. Hopefully, we won't have to destroy all our freedom and civilization to do so (although some of our civilization would be nice to lose, too, in my opinion). Also, although especially in the USA, we are massively car & gasoline oriented, I think that's also not necessary, nor desirable. I much prefer pedestrian-oriented communities, with as little exhaust pollution as possible.

PvK

[narf poit chez BOOM]

divide everybody into family's of four. divide the araible land of the us and canada among them. i'm sure there's enough for everyone to live off, just not feast on. and that leaves the rest of the world.