Teaching the importance of Oil in Schools?

[Guest sibon]

The impetus is on Sibon to define the concept of how 'magic' and 'miracles' will save us because it his him/ her that believes they will occur.

 

.

 

Thanks for that Cavegirl. Thought provoking.

 

I think that we can agree that we need to look for sustainable methods of agriculture. Our fish stocks are crucial, yet abused, so again.. we are in agreement, restocking or a moratorium on fishing is a priority. Over population is also a major problem, but solveable.

 

You didn't seem to mention water in your post. That is going to be the big issue. Had you posted on here about the "Peak Water" problem (or equivalent), then you would have had more of a point. We don't have enough water. Providing drinkng water is energy intensive. It is a huge issue for our civillisation. I could live for years without oil products. I couldn't last the week without water.

 

In a way, I like the way of life that you propose in general. I've been tempted to bugger off from my job on several occasions and buy a smallholding. I'm quite sure that I could support myself if I had to. I don't want to though and so I'm not going to. I can't see legions of city dwellers signing up for your scheme either.

 

That is the big problem with your plan. People won't grow their own food or keep their own animals. They won't chop wood or form a cooperative to sell locally produced honey. They will steal your parsnips and my carrots though. Human nature is the reason that your plan is unworkable.

 

All in all, I prefer my future. Powered by clean energy. Forward looking. Driven by technologists looking forward, not backward.

[Tony]

A small aside on fish since I picked up on a conference at the weekend. The UN (known for both massive and under and over reaction) think that the oceans are French Connectioned. and not just in the UK.

 

http://www.un.org/apps/news/morenews.asp?Cr=oceans&Cr1=

[Longcol]

I did find you a link, I decided not to be as petty as you have been.

 

I think that if the national currency collapses again then everything will need to be localised anyway, certainly until things re-stabilise. Food and water provision will certainly be mainly of local concern. Having small local city wide or sub-regional wide currencies in place before that happens could be of huge benefit. These things can tick away nicely in the background until they're needed so one could be set up straight away in Sheffield. As Totnes suggest it enables people to trade locally without any money leaking out of the system- so it remains in Sheffield and benefits Sheffielders.

It may be that in a post- oil society it becomes necessary to try to link local currencies together again, but this could be done gradually and with the knowledge gained from other places have already experimented and tried it.

 

Sorry if I appear petty again but which national currency are you talking about - the peso or the £ (which has never collapsed to the extent you are talking about).

 

Now let me see - how could a local currency really work in a city - we have to trade goods with other cities - buy in food etc - we're nothing like self sufficient. When was the last time local currencies existed on such a micro level. You're implying a collapse of society for that to happen IMHO.

 

And how do you reconcile "collapse" in the first sentence of your second par with the gradualism implied in the last sentence.

 

Yes - oil will run out - but if a local exchange mechanism can be operated by some old hippies in Totnes then why so incredible that a profit led motive - which has far greater resources to bring to bear on the matter - won't find a solution

[Guest sibon]

A small aside on fish since I picked up on a conference at the weekend. The UN (known for both massive and under and over reaction) think that the oceans are French Connectioned. and not just in the UK.

 

http://www.un.org/apps/news/morenews.asp?Cr=oceans&Cr1=

 

That is probably a reasonable reaction. We treat the oceans dreadfully, partly because we can't see the damage that we cause.

 

To put the thread back on topic. I mentioned using plants and chlorophyll as part of the solution to our problems last night. The oceans are an ideal place to do some of this. We really must treat them with more respect.

[Cavegirl]

Thanks for that Cavegirl. Thought provoking.

 

I think that we can agree that we need to look for sustainable methods of agriculture. Our fish stocks are crucial, yet abused, so again.. we are in agreement, restocking or a moratorium on fishing is a priority. Over population is also a major problem, but solveable.

 

You didn't seem to mention water in your post. That is going to be the big issue. Had you posted on here about the "Peak Water" problem (or equivalent), then you would have had more of a point. We don't have enough water. Providing drinkng water is energy intensive. It is a huge issue for our civillisation. I could live for years without oil products. I couldn't last the week without water.

 

In a way, I like the way of life that you propose in general. I've been tempted to bugger off from my job on several occasions and buy a smallholding. I'm quite sure that I could support myself if I had to. I don't want to though and so I'm not going to. I can't see legions of city dwellers signing up for your scheme either.

 

That is the big problem with your plan. People won't grow their own food or keep their own animals. They won't chop wood or form a cooperative to sell locally produced honey. They will steal your parsnips and my carrots though. Human nature is the reason that your plan is unworkable.

 

All in all, I prefer my future. Powered by clean energy. Forward looking. Driven by technologists looking forward, not backward.

 

I'm glad that we're all reaching some consensus on these issues.

 

I actually think peak water will be slightly less of an issue in the UK and perhaps even globally because I think the main reason that we're running out of fresh water are the current farming and industrial practices that are in place. These huge companies are pumping huge quantities of water out of the system before it reaches the household consumer. Once they start to diminish there will be much more freshwater availability from what I can see.

 

I also think you're right about human nature to some extent. I read a very interesting novel called the Dirty Havana Trilogy by Pedro Juan Gutiérrez who described his experiences in Cuba during the early 1990's when the US prevented any oil from reaching the country. Prostitution rose enormously, as did theft, muggings and violence. People were literally starving to death on the streets. It's not a pretty read. However, this documentary does provide a much better view of things- the government gave away land for free so that people could farm, in the cities all car parks were turned into food growing spaces etc. It obviously took them a while and the first few years were undoubtedly harsh, but it gradually improved.

 

http://www.livevideo.com/video/mercofspeech/CD893609A0CB495D9A9CF04AC9E4AEFF/power-of-community-how-cuba-.aspx

 

But I don't think it has to be that way- we do have some time to prepare I hope. Some people will want to leave and do something positive when the supermarket shelves start to dry up I can guarantee that and the supermarkets will empty within the earlier stages of peak-oil. Though I also agree that it may come to violence due to poverty for others. That's why I'm so keen to discuss this topic and try to get these points across.

[Guest sibon]

I'm glad that we're all reaching some consensus on these issues.

 

I actually think peak water will be slightly less of an issue in the UK and perhaps even globally because I think the main reason that we're running out of fresh water are the current farming and industrial practices that are in place. These huge companies are pumping huge quantities of water out of the system before it reaches the household consumer. Once they start to diminish there will be much more freshwater availability from what I can see.

 

I also think you're right about human nature to some extent. I read a very interesting novel called the Dirty Havana Trilogy by Pedro Juan Gutiérrez who described his experiences in Cuba during the early 1990's when the US prevented any oil from reaching the country. Prostitution rose enormously, as did theft, muggings and violence. People were literally starving to death on the streets. It's not a pretty read.

 

But I don't think it has to be that way- we do have some time to prepare I hope. Some people will want to leave and do something positive when the supermarket shelves start to dry up I can guarantee that and the supermarkets will empty within the earlier stages of post-oil. Though I also agree that it may come to violence due to poverty for others. That's why I'm so keen to discuss this topic and try to get these points across.

 

I'm off to bed now, but I'd like to carry the discussion on tomorrow.

 

We are miles from concensus, but we do share some common ground. I've spent a lot of time campaigning on a variety of environmental issues, I'm sure that you have too. I just don't share your apocalyptic vision of the future.

 

Perhaps you'd like to consider what would happen if we did find a clean energy source that could sustain us more or less as we are. What would happen if we could produce enough hydrocarbons to continue as we are? After all, we are sitting on quite a lot of coal:suspect:

 

What could the world's governments do to ensure that we avoid future crises?

 

All questions, I know. But they are important ones. And they don't have simple answers.

[Cavegirl]

I just don't share your apocalyptic vision of the future.

 

Perhaps you'd like to consider what would happen if we did find a clean energy source that could sustain us more or less as we are. What would happen if we could produce enough hydrocarbons to continue as we are? After all, we are sitting on quite a lot of coal:suspect:

 

What could the world's governments do to ensure that we avoid future crises?

 

(I did say "some consensus" which means the same as "some common ground").

 

I think my vision of the future is only apocalyptic if the necessary suggestions that I've made prove to be either impossible to accomplish or are largely ignored and Peak Oil theory proves to be valid (as I and many many others worldwide believe it is).

 

If an energy source is discovered then that's wonderful. We do have the most stable society that has ever been developed and it is in everyones best interests that that stability is preserved and hopefully spreads to other still developing nations. But we should still consider peak oil to be a warning about the limitations of finite resources. A cheap energy supply should be seen as a gift not as a mundane aspect of life. We should use it to recycle more and to solve some of the other many global environmental issues that we currently face. Many things are peaking in the world at the moment- minerals, metals, water, fish etc etc- we can't afford to lose these things. A wake-up-call is required no matter what happens. Of course, it probably still wouldn't solve the issues regarding the abundant chemical properties that oil and gas also provide- so fertilisers, pesticides, certain medications, paints and many many other products would still be under threat.

 

Hydrocarbons do need to go. They are a pollutant in the atmosphere and though I'm not convinced either way yet of the science about global warming I still think they cause serious health issues in humans and animals. Coal is set to peak any time between now and 50 years in the future depending upon which research you ascribe to-

 

http://www.energybulletin.net/node/29919

 

I'm not sure how much governments can really do other than urge researchers to tackle certain issues. I do understand that in many ways they are constrained by issues of preserving the markets- any interference can be perceived as manipulation of those markets by economists. In fact I think governments could potentially be detrimental because they may choose to support solutions that they think voters will prefer (short-termism) rather than more necessary solutions.

 

I think the internet actually serves a much better role here because information can be exchanged more freely. Sometimes grassroots movements are far more powerful than governments can be. We just need to be aware of the general population mindset that the government is there to solve all of our problems for us and this could lead to inertia. However, governments can't ignore a changing zeitgeist within their citizens if the points are put across well.