Re: reprt on the geo-political implications of agw from the center for american progress...


"aracari" <spamtrap@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:71cf8761b21ad7efcfe73d21216d9db7@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

On Wed, 7 Nov 2007 21:18:20 -0800 'Jason P'
wrote this on uk.politics.misc:


"aracari" <spamtrap@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:5a942f1aa319275c9c412400652d4274@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

On Wed, 07 Nov 2007 18:23:07 +0100 'abelard'
wrote this on uk.politics.misc:

On Wed, 07 Nov 2007 17:05:32 +0000, aracari
<spamtrap@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


On Wed, 07 Nov 2007 16:23:40 +0100 'abelard'
wrote this on uk.politics.misc:

"Large-scale human migration due to resource scarcity, increased
frequency of extreme weather events, and other factors, particularly
in the developing countries in the earthââ,¬â"¢s low latitudinal
band.

Intensifying intra- and inter-state competition for food, water, and
other resources, particularly in the Middle East and North Africa.

Increased frequency and severity of disease outbreaks.

Heightened risk of state failure and regional conflagration.

Significant shifts in the geostrategic roles of every major fuel type.
Increased U.S. border stress due to the severe effects of climate
change in parts of Mexico and the Caribbean.

Increased uncertainty over how Chinaââ,¬â"¢s political leadership
will
respond to growing domestic and international pressure to become a
"responsible stakeholder" in the global environment.

Strain on the capacity of the United States - and in particular the
U.S. military - to act as a "first responder" to international
disasters and humanitarian crises due to their increased frequency,
complexity, and danger.

Growing demand for international institutions to play new and expanded
roles in the management of refugee crises and in providing forums for
the negotiation of climate agreements."

It won't have missed your attention that every one of these
consequences will happen when fossil fuel energy reserves begin to
seriously deplete. In fact, some of them are *more* predictable
when an energy crunch arises than from global warming.

of course....

The diff is that we *can* take action to minimise energy depletion
consequences in various ways, but can only mitigate the consequences
of GW to an extent. One's under our control, the other isn't.

i believe we can mitigate agw....

I only believe we can mitigate some the consequences of GW by some
of the things I've mentioned before - eg revising building design
standards in high risk flood areas, building flood defences etc etc.
But I see little/no action on those issues.

but the two situations are intimately linked....

Indeed.

these problems are highly political...one thing the world is not
short of is stupidity....

meanwhile the clown/eussr 'runs' open borders...

i think you over-estimate the ability to control energy growth....
http://www.abelard.org/briefings/energy-economics.php#jevon
understanding jevonsâ?T paradox is essential.....

Jeven's is right of course but nevertheless there's still huge
opportunities to reduce the current consumption levels (from where
they are today) *and* to replace a lot of it with clean(er)
alternatives. I've mentioned that before. To some extent that makes
a 'Jeven' rise in demand irrelevant or at least less important.

all polls suggest that individuals will cling like limpets to their
own interests and do as little as possible to change their
actions...
they will even justify this by becoming flat earthers or agw
deniers if called upon....

Well I am of the view that climate change is largely being used
as political propaganda to hide the real issue: energy. As we drift
towards an energy crunch, the political focus will quietly turn
towards it because, although they've managed to ignore $100 oil
and the supply/demand stats, they won't be able to ignore it when
$200 oil arrives.

these are totc situation/s and will not be dealt with by
individual action alone

Agreed. But I want to see government setting an example but
I know that will not happen.....


Not in a million years... Government in general is run by politicians, and
as such it can only follow the consensus of the governed by appearing to
do
what is right and fair for all. "Appearance" being the pivotal word --
it's
all about collective perception. And collective perception can be, and is,
manipulated by 'governments' to achieve the secret agendas of
societal-elites (politicians).

It's an endless loop, and a no-win situation for those unfortunate enough
to
be on the low rungs of the working classes. Only the 'less-fortunate'
fight
the wars, pay the burden of taxes, and also lose out when the government
heads down the wrong path geo-politically.

We'd be better off ruled by robots, or chimpanzees, over the class of
"rulers" now in the seats of power.

What p*sses me off is that, despite all the political pressure on
*us* to reduce consumption of fossil fuel etc, the elite still fly
around in private or chartered planes, huge convoys of private limos
and all the rest of it. I see no effort on their part to economise
at all. It looks like the last 30% of oil will only be available for
their use and we'll have to travel by bus.


I agree... On this side of the pond, I've only seen one president actually
act like a real leader on the ecology. During the 1970s fuel shortage, Jimmy
Carter actually made efforts to reduce his and the overall government's use
of fossil fuels. He insisted on smaller and fewer vehicles in his entourage,
and he instituted the use of the Post Office's all-electric vehicles. We've
had all-electric vehicle mail-delivery in rural and suburban areas ever
since.

During a spike in meat prices Carter had the white house cooks serve soup at
nightly meal with less meat on everyone's plate.

No president since then has behaved in a similar way. What does that tell
you?



.

Relevant Pages
Loading