Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Concerned about the end of the oil age?
- Thread starter eclipse
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
eclipse said:Do we reclaim our sewerage for NPK or are industry dumping too many heavy metals down the drains to risk using sewerage as fertilizer?
Lawn clippings? Tree and bush trimmings? Nutrient-rich kitchen waste? Animal Manure? Phosphates from sewer plants condensed and sold, then diluted and applied to gardens instead of being released into streams? There's plenty of ways to get the right balance.
Btw, if you compost correctly there is little smell and intense benificial bacterial growth. Those baceria's anerobic processes can make your pile attain temperatures up to 150?F, and provide warm homes for worms (who make great castings and promote soil health) and other small critters.
TrenchMouth said:
Hi,
I am trying to raise awareness so that some governments and some industries can start switching over to whatever replaces oil. The only problem with the whaling example is that we moved from on energy source up to a BETTER one.
Over the last 500 years humanity has moved from wood to coke to coal to oil and gas.
We have built our entire sububran model on oil.
This is the first time in half a millenium that we have to go from a high density energy source backwards to lower energy sources, more diffuse energy, more difficult energy to harness and store, more expensive energy. All renewables fail my SERVICE checklist.
http://eclipsenow.org/facts/service-checklist.html
There is a giagantic amount of work to be done, and no time to do it. The Hirsch report concludes so, Roscoe Bartlett has concluded so, it sounds like the Andrew McNamara taskforce has concluded so....
it's not the end of the world or the end of humanity, but it is the end of economic prosperity for a generation or so... and it is the fault of the short-sightedness of our leaders at a Federal, State, and Local level of government for allowing us to build like this.
This Greater Depression could have been avoided.
Forget Watergate Oil gate is here.
So I guess my message is not "Panic" but "be aware" and let others know, write to your local member of parliament, put up some of my free awareness posters, get out of debt if you can, check out when the experts are saying we are going to peak, and make plans. Buy a 3 pack of www.endofsuburbia.com and show your mates. Show your local representatives. Show your kids teachers and headmaster. The politicians won't act until there is a grassroots movement demanding change.
This is science, not religion. Peak oil is just about here... the experts have revised their estimates closer, not further away.... from 2010 down to 2008 and some are now saying we are already there! Put up a poster today.
It's kinda funny, a guy I know found this like 3 years ago while making a post-apocalyptic animation awhile back, and showed me. Everyone just looked at me like I was crazy when I told them that we're going to run out of oil and die a lot, but now it's all over the place. Sure took them long enough to spread the news...
Humanity really sucks at living.
Humanity really sucks at living.
eclipse said:
Well, for people with smaller lawns (my plot is 1/4 acre) there are reel mowers (which is the only mower I own). I alternate mulching the grass (leaving it lay on the grass) and composting it with leaves and newspaper, kitchen waste, etc. to make compost for my large garden. For people with larger lawns (who have no business in the country if they're not running a farm), if they remain and use a crop rotation scheme, it will most likely include 'fallow'. Perhaps they'll have a few hens (for eggs and eventually meat) run around the fallow area, depositing mineral-rich guano on the ground. That fallow grass and those plants of course will have to be mowed somehow, and the grass can be used for compost.
Also, i'm sure that not ALL of lawns will be used for gardening. I'd say about 50-90% will be.
Number of people whose food energy needs can be met by the food produced on 2.5 acres of land if the land is producing...
(Cited in The Food Revolution by John Robbins, p. 294).
cabbage 23 people
potatoes 22 people
rice 19 people
corn 17 people
wheat 15 people
chicken 2 people
milk 2 people
eggs 1 person
beef 1 person
(this is using the row and trench method, not the square-foot method I employ. I'm sure yields would be higher the square foot way)
Also, tree leaves, kitchen waste, human refuse and animal manure, non-edible parts of food plants, and other yard waste will still be around!
I've been looking for a reliable land to food ratio for a while.... are you sure he's got beef right though? I thought it took about 4 or 5 acres of grass to keep a cow?
OK, that's pretty encouraging. Also, if we recycle our humanure and stop the NPK flushing out to see... we could see a gradual INCREASE in the soil's NPK as when we go fishing & harvest seaweed for extra energy (biomass) and fertilizer. We can get through this without Dieoff coming true... but I still think LATOC and Dieoff are salutary warnings.
Just think how much suburbia there is!
OK, that's pretty encouraging. Also, if we recycle our humanure and stop the NPK flushing out to see... we could see a gradual INCREASE in the soil's NPK as when we go fishing & harvest seaweed for extra energy (biomass) and fertilizer. We can get through this without Dieoff coming true... but I still think LATOC and Dieoff are salutary warnings.
Just think how much suburbia there is!
eclipse said:
Yea, i'm sure that he's got the beef wrong, but no one in suburbia is going to keep a cow. Rabbits, chickens, turkeys, ducks, and maybe goats, but not cows.
I'm sure that much of suburbia will be torn apart for farms and building material, and on rural roads, people will eventually annex their neighbor's plot of land as their own. We may see a rebuilding of small railroads (mostly to bring food into the cities), and a sucking-in and condensing of cities. The 'mega-opolis' of the eastern US (from Boston to D.C.) will stay together, but the suburb crap between them will probably become farm or woods again. They'll actually be seperate cities!
Overpopulation
Im in Sydney Australia, and weve got national parks on North, South and West of us, and the Sea on the east. My main concern is that Sydneys fresh fruit & veg plots are being concreted over by suburbia as more and more people land in this country and settle in Sydney. (1000 per week come to Sydney!)
Have you seen anything in your media or politics on overpopulation, or is that as taboo a subject in the US as it is here downunder?
Im in Sydney Australia, and weve got national parks on North, South and West of us, and the Sea on the east. My main concern is that Sydneys fresh fruit & veg plots are being concreted over by suburbia as more and more people land in this country and settle in Sydney. (1000 per week come to Sydney!)
Have you seen anything in your media or politics on overpopulation, or is that as taboo a subject in the US as it is here downunder?
cr2sh said:
The EXACT strain of the bird flu virus (H5N1 or whatever) has been around since the 1950's, and has never become transmissable from human to human. I doubt it will. In addition, I was reading, and even if the bird flu turns human-to-human, it's only supposed to kill a few million people worldwide, not 3.1 billion.
If I've got my facts right a recent test on victims of the 1918 epidemic showed it to be H5N1 type and it had jumped species.The UN epidemeologist head is predicting up to 150 million deaths if it jumps species(that was a ball park figure nobody really knows).
Whoo I just became a 6502.
Heres a short article about it:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4308872.stm
Whoo I just became a 6502.
Heres a short article about it:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4308872.stm
Peterkro said:
Haha, congrats on the 6502... but even if 150 million dead is a horrible tragedy, it's only 1/400 (.025% or one-fourth of one percent) of the world population. Famine, wars, and disease from peak oil could kill billions.
Peterkro said:
Haha, congrats on the 6502... but even if 150 million dead is a horrible tragedy, it's only 1/400 of the world population. Famine, wars, and disease from peak oil could kill billions.
I agree but 150million is a lot of people,I've been banging on about whats happening since the sixties and have now reached the cynical position that its too late a vast population thinning is going to happen one way or the other,I'm too old for it to effect me personally too much but I do feel for those who will have to experience it.Does grumpy old man scowl.mac_head101 said:
cr2sh said:Your number says 3billion... mine says 50billion. *shrug*
I wrote a long post and deleted it. This discussion is not worth my time.
I hate seeing control freaks represent their pessimism with graphs and statistics.
Wait, what? I'm sorry, I didn't mean to come off as a control freak, and I hope I didn't upset you; post your post! It's important to see all sides and opinions about an issue.
But one thing... 50 billion WHAT? There's only 6.2 billion people on the planet!
Hey, Cr2sh, I'm not a control freak... I'm an "awareness freak" and just want to hear governments debate scientifically informed solutions to peak oil, and not just flap on about some mythical "hydrogen economy" when we'd basically have to double or triple our power plants to scale up the hydrogen!
I'm sorry you feel that way. I personally can see the potential for billions to die if peak oil potential conflicts go nuclear — but I hope we can avoid that with enough awareness early enough. But the Greater depression is going to suck!
Graphs and statistics to be dogmatic? Hmmm, I thought we discussed scientific matters with graphs and statistics and projections, and peak oil starts off with a scientific statement... the cheap oil is running out, and overall production is going to taper off sometime soon.
I'm sorry if those graphs and statistics sound depressing, but seriously, I agree that bird flu is an issue... but after peak oil and the airlines going down, it might not be as big an issue as before peak oil.
Andrew McNamara, the Queensland state "oil vulnerability taskforce" MP thinks peak oil is more serious and certain than terrorism, bird flu and global warming combined!
I'm sorry you feel that way. I personally can see the potential for billions to die if peak oil potential conflicts go nuclear — but I hope we can avoid that with enough awareness early enough. But the Greater depression is going to suck!
Graphs and statistics to be dogmatic? Hmmm, I thought we discussed scientific matters with graphs and statistics and projections, and peak oil starts off with a scientific statement... the cheap oil is running out, and overall production is going to taper off sometime soon.
I'm sorry if those graphs and statistics sound depressing, but seriously, I agree that bird flu is an issue... but after peak oil and the airlines going down, it might not be as big an issue as before peak oil.
Andrew McNamara, the Queensland state "oil vulnerability taskforce" MP thinks peak oil is more serious and certain than terrorism, bird flu and global warming combined!
statistics can be looked at, and represented many different ways
overall, we are growing in world population, more in some areas and less (someplaces way less) in other areas...so some areas won't have sustainable work due to overpopulation and other places will have massive labor shortages due to underpopulation and both could cause chaos
the oil situation is dire but some may not think so, but take that with political and religious conflict, disease from malnutrition, disease from obesity, teen pregnancy, and other issues and any way one sees it, we are in a world of trouble and have to fight and claw our way each century from now on to survive as a human race
it's been hard up to now in human history, but unfortunately, imo, we will see the worst times ahead over the next millenium
my guess as to the big issues would be:
1) obesity related diseases will kill hundreds of millions as china and india emerge as modern nations if it takes centuries more to wipe out diabetes, heart disease, and cancer
2) there will be another huge religious conflict worldwide between islam and christianity (the crusades lasted 200 years) and the islamic world will eventually have more access to nuclear and biological weapons
3) there will be major environmental issues with our cars, relaxed environmental laws used to push world trade, and the diminishing of our forests
but in all that darkness, perhaps we will wipe out bacterial and viral borne diseases within the next century
jerusalem will be bound to cycle into a centuries long peace
racism and sexism will virtually disappear and many areas it used to plague
and more people will use macs...ok, maybe i am being overly hopeful with this one
overall, we are growing in world population, more in some areas and less (someplaces way less) in other areas...so some areas won't have sustainable work due to overpopulation and other places will have massive labor shortages due to underpopulation and both could cause chaos
the oil situation is dire but some may not think so, but take that with political and religious conflict, disease from malnutrition, disease from obesity, teen pregnancy, and other issues and any way one sees it, we are in a world of trouble and have to fight and claw our way each century from now on to survive as a human race
it's been hard up to now in human history, but unfortunately, imo, we will see the worst times ahead over the next millenium
my guess as to the big issues would be:
1) obesity related diseases will kill hundreds of millions as china and india emerge as modern nations if it takes centuries more to wipe out diabetes, heart disease, and cancer
2) there will be another huge religious conflict worldwide between islam and christianity (the crusades lasted 200 years) and the islamic world will eventually have more access to nuclear and biological weapons
3) there will be major environmental issues with our cars, relaxed environmental laws used to push world trade, and the diminishing of our forests
but in all that darkness, perhaps we will wipe out bacterial and viral borne diseases within the next century
jerusalem will be bound to cycle into a centuries long peace
racism and sexism will virtually disappear and many areas it used to plague
and more people will use macs...ok, maybe i am being overly hopeful with this one
I agree with some of the above but there may not be enough hydrocarbons left to continue global warming!
Also, cars? What cars?
Maybe nice clean electricity burning BEV's... battery electric vehicles... that is unless we deplete lithium!
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn4216
'Too little' oil for global warming
Energy discrepancy
Oil and gas will run out too fast for doomsday global warming scenarios to materialise, according to a controversial analysis presented this week at the University of Uppsala in Sweden. The authors warn that all the fuel will be burnt before there is enough carbon dioxide in the atmosphere to realise predictions of melting ice caps and searing temperatures.
Defending their predictions, scientists from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change say they considered a range of estimates of oil and gas reserves, and point out that coal-burning could easily make up the shortfall. But all agree that burning coal would be even worse for the planet.
The IPCC's predictions of global meltdown provided the impetus for the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, an agreement obliging signatory nations to cut CO2 emissions. The IPCC considered a range of future scenarios, from profligate burning of fossil-fuels to a fast transition towards greener energy sources.
But geologists Anders Sivertsson, Kjell Aleklett and Colin Campbell of Uppsala University say there is not enough oil and gas left for even the most conservative of the 40 IPCC scenarios to come to pass (see graphic).
Billions of barrels
Although estimates of oil and gas reserves vary widely, the researchers are part of a growing group of experts who believe that oil supplies will peak as soon as 2010, and gas soon after (New Scientist print edition, 2 August 2003).
Their analysis suggests that oil and gas reserves combined amount to the equivalent of about 3500 billion barrels of oil considerably less than the 5000 billion barrels estimated in the most optimistic model envisaged by the IPCC.
The worst-case scenario sees 18,000 billion barrels of oil and gas being burnt five times the amount the researchers believe is left. "That's completely unrealistic," says Aleklett. Even the average forecast of about 8000 billion barrels is more than twice the Swedish estimate of the world's remaining reserves.
Nebojsa Nakicenovic, an energy economist at the University of Vienna, Austria who headed the 80-strong IPCC team that produced the forecasts, says the panel's work still stands. He says they factored in a much broader and internationally accepted range of oil and gas estimates than the "conservative" Swedes.
Even if oil and gas run out, "there's a huge amount of coal underground that could be exploited", he says. Aleklett agrees that burning coal could make the IPCC scenarios come true, but points out that such a switch would be disastrous.
Coal is dirtier than oil or gas and produces more CO2 for each unit of energy, as well as releasing large amounts of particulates. He says the latest analysis is a "shot across the bows" for policy makers.
Also, cars? What cars?
Maybe nice clean electricity burning BEV's... battery electric vehicles... that is unless we deplete lithium!
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn4216
'Too little' oil for global warming
Energy discrepancy
Oil and gas will run out too fast for doomsday global warming scenarios to materialise, according to a controversial analysis presented this week at the University of Uppsala in Sweden. The authors warn that all the fuel will be burnt before there is enough carbon dioxide in the atmosphere to realise predictions of melting ice caps and searing temperatures.
Defending their predictions, scientists from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change say they considered a range of estimates of oil and gas reserves, and point out that coal-burning could easily make up the shortfall. But all agree that burning coal would be even worse for the planet.
The IPCC's predictions of global meltdown provided the impetus for the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, an agreement obliging signatory nations to cut CO2 emissions. The IPCC considered a range of future scenarios, from profligate burning of fossil-fuels to a fast transition towards greener energy sources.
But geologists Anders Sivertsson, Kjell Aleklett and Colin Campbell of Uppsala University say there is not enough oil and gas left for even the most conservative of the 40 IPCC scenarios to come to pass (see graphic).
Billions of barrels
Although estimates of oil and gas reserves vary widely, the researchers are part of a growing group of experts who believe that oil supplies will peak as soon as 2010, and gas soon after (New Scientist print edition, 2 August 2003).
Their analysis suggests that oil and gas reserves combined amount to the equivalent of about 3500 billion barrels of oil considerably less than the 5000 billion barrels estimated in the most optimistic model envisaged by the IPCC.
The worst-case scenario sees 18,000 billion barrels of oil and gas being burnt five times the amount the researchers believe is left. "That's completely unrealistic," says Aleklett. Even the average forecast of about 8000 billion barrels is more than twice the Swedish estimate of the world's remaining reserves.
Nebojsa Nakicenovic, an energy economist at the University of Vienna, Austria who headed the 80-strong IPCC team that produced the forecasts, says the panel's work still stands. He says they factored in a much broader and internationally accepted range of oil and gas estimates than the "conservative" Swedes.
Even if oil and gas run out, "there's a huge amount of coal underground that could be exploited", he says. Aleklett agrees that burning coal could make the IPCC scenarios come true, but points out that such a switch would be disastrous.
Coal is dirtier than oil or gas and produces more CO2 for each unit of energy, as well as releasing large amounts of particulates. He says the latest analysis is a "shot across the bows" for policy makers.
I hope 2 posts in a row does not constitute "trolling" but here's the Andrew McNamara stuff I've been talking about.... from the Parliamentary record for Queensland Australia.
We should make no mistake: there is no silver bullet to defeat the most serious impacts of peak oil. We will not find sufficient new oil fields to meet current demand, let alone to feed the soaring demand of emerging economies like China. New oil discovery across the world peaked in 1960 and we now find one barrel of oil for every four we consume. The six giant Saudi oilfields that produce the entire eight million barrels a day of Saudi production are all aged between 40 and 65 years. Nothing approaching the giant Ghawar field size has been found in the last 50 years. We have coal for electric power for 200 years, but coal cannot effectively replace oil. While it is possible to make synthetic fuels from coal and while hydrogen extracted from coal can power a fuel cell, these processes use more energy than they produce. In other words, they are net energy losers. This is the unavoidable impact of the second law of thermodynamics. Nuclear power suffers from the same net energy loss problem, as well as the known radiation and waste storage risks. The only effective replacement energy source for oil is liquefied natural gas, but it is subject to the same Hubbert curve as oil and may even be disappearing at a faster rate. All other energy sources combined cannot replace the volume of energy we derive from oil. For some alternative energy sources, such as ethanol, far more energy is expended in planting, fertilising, growing, harvesting and processing than its end product renders. No other energy source can fly planes or drive heavy trucks and machinery. Further, most of the world's fertiliser is now made from natural gas, and most of the world's pesticide is made from oil. As fuel prices double and then double again in the years after the peak, we will be faced with some very hard choices in the fields of agriculture, food distribution and transport generally.
I congratulate the government on its recent decision to preserve agricultural land in the southeast corner. The challenges we face after peak oil will require localised food production and industry in a way not seen for 100 years. Local rail lines and fishing fleets will be vital to regional communities. Self contained communities living close to work, farm, services and schools will not be merely desirable; they will be essential. There is much more to say on this topic. I note that it has now found its way into the mainstream media via a front-page story in the Wall Street Journal of 21 September 2004 and an editorial in the Washington Times of 2 November 2004. I welcome that public discussion and suggest that this topic should be considered in detail in Australia and in this place. For members who are interested in a very thorough treatment of this issue I recommend Richard Heinberg's detailed 2003 book The Party's Over.
Let me conclude with this simple statement of fact. Peak oil is comingsoonand no alternative energy source available to us today or in the foreseeable future is going to make up the total energy shortfall. The beginning of the end of the oil age is upon us, and it is time to respond fully to that challenge. The petroleum bill before the House is a necessary step in that process. I congratulate the minister on this reform as well as on last year's Petroleum and Gas (Production and Safety) Act and the Petroleum and Other Legislation Bill that collectively regulate and encourage the exploration and development of petroleum and gas resources in Queensland. I commend the bill to the House.
http://eclipsenow.org/facts/governments.html#Queensland anchor
We should make no mistake: there is no silver bullet to defeat the most serious impacts of peak oil. We will not find sufficient new oil fields to meet current demand, let alone to feed the soaring demand of emerging economies like China. New oil discovery across the world peaked in 1960 and we now find one barrel of oil for every four we consume. The six giant Saudi oilfields that produce the entire eight million barrels a day of Saudi production are all aged between 40 and 65 years. Nothing approaching the giant Ghawar field size has been found in the last 50 years. We have coal for electric power for 200 years, but coal cannot effectively replace oil. While it is possible to make synthetic fuels from coal and while hydrogen extracted from coal can power a fuel cell, these processes use more energy than they produce. In other words, they are net energy losers. This is the unavoidable impact of the second law of thermodynamics. Nuclear power suffers from the same net energy loss problem, as well as the known radiation and waste storage risks. The only effective replacement energy source for oil is liquefied natural gas, but it is subject to the same Hubbert curve as oil and may even be disappearing at a faster rate. All other energy sources combined cannot replace the volume of energy we derive from oil. For some alternative energy sources, such as ethanol, far more energy is expended in planting, fertilising, growing, harvesting and processing than its end product renders. No other energy source can fly planes or drive heavy trucks and machinery. Further, most of the world's fertiliser is now made from natural gas, and most of the world's pesticide is made from oil. As fuel prices double and then double again in the years after the peak, we will be faced with some very hard choices in the fields of agriculture, food distribution and transport generally.
I congratulate the government on its recent decision to preserve agricultural land in the southeast corner. The challenges we face after peak oil will require localised food production and industry in a way not seen for 100 years. Local rail lines and fishing fleets will be vital to regional communities. Self contained communities living close to work, farm, services and schools will not be merely desirable; they will be essential. There is much more to say on this topic. I note that it has now found its way into the mainstream media via a front-page story in the Wall Street Journal of 21 September 2004 and an editorial in the Washington Times of 2 November 2004. I welcome that public discussion and suggest that this topic should be considered in detail in Australia and in this place. For members who are interested in a very thorough treatment of this issue I recommend Richard Heinberg's detailed 2003 book The Party's Over.
Let me conclude with this simple statement of fact. Peak oil is comingsoonand no alternative energy source available to us today or in the foreseeable future is going to make up the total energy shortfall. The beginning of the end of the oil age is upon us, and it is time to respond fully to that challenge. The petroleum bill before the House is a necessary step in that process. I congratulate the minister on this reform as well as on last year's Petroleum and Gas (Production and Safety) Act and the Petroleum and Other Legislation Bill that collectively regulate and encourage the exploration and development of petroleum and gas resources in Queensland. I commend the bill to the House.
http://eclipsenow.org/facts/governments.html#Queensland anchor
Here's a little history I know our children will be taught:
Let's imagine it is the year 2040, after the great Oil Peak, and World Depression....
(Iraq, this is not so much of a religious war, as one over resources, the Jihad is as much used to control Muslim population, as the Christian doctrine is used elsewhere)
In studying the Oil age (that time that dictates the Industrial age through the Great Oil Peak and Great World Depression of 2040), We will study that the US energy policy, had become its military policy. President Clinton called on a mass build up of military forces to move on the Caspian Sea oil reserves, which occurred in a quiet scrimmage between China, the US and Britain. This marks the first (little known) Oil War The following Presidential Administrations Policy (Bush/Cheney) on the energy grab in Iraq is not the sole Administration prior to the Great Oil Peak that had set its sights on such military conquest.
We learned that the day of 9/11 is linked to the ideal that factions believed the abuse of natural resources in the Arab world such as the use of their petroleum supply, is abused & immoral when wasting it on selling to the western world, and the great building of palaces and the likes. Sept 11 was an attempt to disrupt the ties between the US & the Saudi Royal family, and the war on terrorism is equally linked to oil, in the essence of securing an uninterrupted oil supply for the USs suburban nation.
Essentially, the American Dream has caused the first half of the 21st centurys strife, and propelled the US from the beginning of the Industrial Age to a world power, being able to become victorious in both the great World Wars. Local economics and farming coupled with strategies for sustainable growth continue to prove how we are the best stewards of our planet, for the time we are here. What more can we want, but the knowledge gained from lessons learned. God, Allah, whatever, would be proud, I think, if we captured just that.
Let's imagine it is the year 2040, after the great Oil Peak, and World Depression....
(Iraq, this is not so much of a religious war, as one over resources, the Jihad is as much used to control Muslim population, as the Christian doctrine is used elsewhere)
In studying the Oil age (that time that dictates the Industrial age through the Great Oil Peak and Great World Depression of 2040), We will study that the US energy policy, had become its military policy. President Clinton called on a mass build up of military forces to move on the Caspian Sea oil reserves, which occurred in a quiet scrimmage between China, the US and Britain. This marks the first (little known) Oil War The following Presidential Administrations Policy (Bush/Cheney) on the energy grab in Iraq is not the sole Administration prior to the Great Oil Peak that had set its sights on such military conquest.
We learned that the day of 9/11 is linked to the ideal that factions believed the abuse of natural resources in the Arab world such as the use of their petroleum supply, is abused & immoral when wasting it on selling to the western world, and the great building of palaces and the likes. Sept 11 was an attempt to disrupt the ties between the US & the Saudi Royal family, and the war on terrorism is equally linked to oil, in the essence of securing an uninterrupted oil supply for the USs suburban nation.
Essentially, the American Dream has caused the first half of the 21st centurys strife, and propelled the US from the beginning of the Industrial Age to a world power, being able to become victorious in both the great World Wars. Local economics and farming coupled with strategies for sustainable growth continue to prove how we are the best stewards of our planet, for the time we are here. What more can we want, but the knowledge gained from lessons learned. God, Allah, whatever, would be proud, I think, if we captured just that.
I have to say I am very, very confused by the last paragraph.
Was that ironic?
I mean, I can't help but hiccup or blink when I hear the term "sustainable growth". Growth is not sustainable in a finite system... and this world's resources are very finite.
Was that ironic?
I mean, I can't help but hiccup or blink when I hear the term "sustainable growth". Growth is not sustainable in a finite system... and this world's resources are very finite.
well, I like to think there are greater minds at work on this then the people on macrumors, like for example the billion dollar companys wh ohave everything to lose, the way i see things, companys like exxon/mobil will ride oil as long as they are making the most money off it, suddenly a new tech will come along to save us from big bad oil and, wouldnt you know it, the same billion dollar companys have us right where they want us again because my fuel cell car runs on exxon cells made at nuclear power plants or something, who knows mabe the end of cheap oil will unite the world and usher in a better era all together, after it shifts power away from iraq/iran and maybe back to the US in the form of nuclear. again i dont have the anwsers, but i do belive that greed will keep us safe, we are not bactirea, we are a virus, we will survive on this planet and the next we spread to (writen at 3am)
(writen at 3am)