That's just one scenario, of course.
What I had in mind was a proper working United Nations in which individual nations were represented in a similar way to the states within the USA or Australia.
It would not just be an energy authority but a political, environmental, and social authority.
Obviously, this a distant possibility in today's world and would be oposed by many special interest groups therefore likely will never emerge...
What I was trying to say is that WITHOUT such an ultimate authority, each nation will continue to act in it's own self interest but to the detriment of the common good.
My scenario of the icecaps melting in 100 years is quite likely, IF we keep globalising our energy-intensive lifestyles and take no action to remediate the impacts.
Of course, something WILL change, and it may be in plain view to us now, but invisible in the same way that future change often is.
- Mobile phones were unpredicted* but are now compulsory for a modern lifestyle.
- In Victorian London, growth estimates saw the city submerging in a sea of horse droppings (which did not happen, due to motor transport) or choking on smog (which did happen, due to the lack of a clean air legislation). Legislating the types of fuel one could burn was seen in the early 1900's as unthinkable intervention, but it proved neccesary. Not all Environmental legislation is fatuous, even if it is irksome to the individual.
Similarly, some global system for allocating permits or taxing the consumption of the atmosphere will be required, unless we stop exponential growth.
[anything that stops exponential growth and globalisation would be a Good Thing from some points of view. It's just that Pandemics, global wars, famine, and natural disaster are unpopular at the time. :-) ]
No Man is an island, and nobody (no individual and no nation) can be allowed full rein to do whatever he pleases just because he has assets in land or money. There are laws against littering and pollution because many people have no sense of responsibility and do not feel it is their concern if others have to wade through their trash - either physical, chemical, moral, or political. At the same time, none of us enjoy wading through other folk's trash and rightfully feel we should not have it imposed on us.
The only inalienable right that should be granted is the right to temporary peaceful stewardship of part of the Earth with the linked obligation to pass the assets on to the future without impairment.
Not a view in tune with the current US establishment and your country's so-so-precios constitution, but it's my view, and I think it has a lot going for it.
*Most SF saw centralised communication systems with everyone talking to a central computer, or the bridge of the Enterprise, rather than a distributed cellular communication system with eveyone dialling direct.
Current Events » in reply to Not that I agree with your long-term solutions...
Cabal...
The whole thread (98 posts)
- Energy projections, PBR reactors, transition times
- Old Chestnuts and New Times
- And then there's this.
- Fracing.
- Talk about synchronicity- anyopne catch the daily show today? (n/t)
- There is also always Methane Hydrates
- Wrong! You wrote: "Nuclear is the ONLY possible scalable technology out there"
- (1) We have been through all of this before
- OK. We shall see what is the bigger producer of electric power in 2025.
- Are there any Sea Solar plants up and running yet? (n/t)
- Okay, sounds fine to me.
- Go for it!
- Singing my song
- The Goddamn Luddites
- Vertebrate mass - think first
- The secret trick word is "vertebrates."
- OK. We shall see what is the bigger producer of electric power in 2025.
- (1) We have been through all of this before
- This is a thread that would benefit from Nick Hoffman
- You seem to write off Oil Sands pretty quickly
- Please enlighten me
- Peaked, or close to it,
- re: Energy projections
- Problem with you is you don't listen
- Renewable Alternatives To Oil Viable At $60/barrel
- the 'running out for many many years' myth