Why we should support the war
Please tell me I’m wrong.
As war, terrorism and political instability spread throughout the Middle East, the higher global oil prices rise. The higher global oil prices rise, the more uneasy governments become about economic dependence on fossil fuels. Loss of faith in fossil fuels will lead to more serious investigation of alternative technologies, and the more these technologies are funded and developed, the less carbon emissions will be produced. The less carbon emissions are produced and the less we come to depend on oil, the more chance we have of avoiding the all-out environmental catastrophe we are currently plunging towards.
If, however, the Middle East was miraculously stabilised tomorrow, global oil prices would fall dramatically. This would mean greater oil consumption all over the world, increased carbon emissions and renewed confidence in an oil-dependent world economy. Few governments would put serious money into alternative technologies if ensured a cheap, steady supply of Middle Eastern oil.
It seems like anyone who believes (as I do) that global warming poses a far greater threat to the world than terrorism does should celebrate the horrific violence in the Middle East, and wish for instability to spread to other oil-rich countries like Iran, Russia, Nigeria and Venezuala.
I’m not sure it’s true that global oil prices would drop immediately if the war ended. It is true, however, that Bush has consistently supported the search for alternative energy sources and has given strong support and funding to programs like those in the American Midwest, a small but significant portion of which is now running on the energy trapped in corn. It’s the only thing he’s ever done that does not make me want to hurl; I feel dizzy when I think about it.
Um, obviously he’s not doing that because of global warming though. As evidenced by his refusal to sign the Kyoto protocols.
OK. Over and out. -NN
I see no point in salvaging the environment to accommodate the bunch of racist loveless cowards humans currently are. I’d rather we came to human peace and died in an boiling acid rainstorm prematurely.
Though I’m not quite sure how to fit the other animals, let alone the plants, fairly into that scheme. I think to be honest it would be best if we all perished in a private acid rainstorm and left them to it.
Sorry. I am missing my anthropy today in a big way.
im not sure about this argument scrutes.
i would like to go into detail but i am hypnotised by bloody cricket.
what i will say is that global carbon emissions are going up by countries which don’t really give a shit about it.
they don’t because we did it before and now they have money they can, you blame them, i don’t!
i blame our industrial revolution and our grandparents and parents.
There’s a historical test case.
As a result of the 1973 Yom Kippur war, OPEC at the time refused to sell the US and Western Europe, and organised an effective total oil embargo. This lasted for 5 months.
Which would have been a great time for someone to think about other fuels. Sadly, no one did. Never mind, eh?
I don’t really get why investing/researching other technologies hasn’t been on any goverments priority list. Mainly because they could have traded it to friends for gain and used it to organise massive politcal clout. Did none of these people play Civilization?
But 1973 was a long time ago. Before the dialogue about global warming had moved beyond a few ‘radical’ scientists. Ordinary people had probably never heard of climate change (they were too busy being funky), whereas now even the Tories have made it part of their agenda.
True but governments could have more forward thinking policies rather than spending the late 70s trying to invent a perpetual motion disco ball.
And the Middle East has been messed up for years - terrorism is used as an excuse for rising oil prices, but its not a particularly significant driver.
Apart from people believing terrorism will reduce supply, panicking and so buying up lots of oil, creating an artificial supply gap and sending prices skyrocketing. Like in the late 70s. Aren’t free markets awesome?
I remain suspicious of the Tories. Given the chance they’d ban air for poor people.
On Planet Earth a couple of weeks ago there was a section that detailed the relationship between insects and spores on the rainforrest floor. The more populous any insect colony became, the more spores would grow. And then within any number of spores there would be a certain percentage that would be poisonous for the insects. Each spore had a direct relationship to each unique colony of insect. They co-existed as trees and humans do; functioning for and feeding one another. If the insects were eating all the spores, the spores would become more poisonous and would kill off a certain number of the insect species; so as to survive one would assume. The way that the spores kill the insect is by poisoning its body and brain and (as the great David Attenborough put it) “like something out of a horror movie”, the spore would eventually kill the mad and mindless insect by exploding out of its head and growing into a beautiful blossoming spore.
Make of that what you will.
The supposed diometrical terms “man-made” and “natural” is a falisy (spelling?) I think.
God I’m tired. All of this was supposed to link on up with whatever your argument was Scrutes. I suspect that somewhere beneath the rambling mumbles it might. But good luck to you if you can work it out.
Abs.x.
I understand you. You’re saying that Middle Eastern spores are turning us all into mindless insects. And Al-Qaeda is a beautiful blossoming fungus.
Thank god someone understands!
Scrutiny for President!
those in power ARE interested in alternatives to oil for fuel - nuclear. bastards. blair went from saying the debate was open on recomissioning nuclear power stations..etc to now saying that he feels nuclear should play a large (meaning the main) part in the fuel solutions of the future. Is the man a complete fruitloop?! On the one hand he’s spouting off about the threat of terroism and on the other he’s advocating increasing our use of probably the most unstable fuel source on the planet. fool.
Research into safe alternatives should have been going on for years, but I suppose it was more convenient for the gov to keep climate change hushed up a bit. I think the idea of carbon capture is an intersting one although it still brings up the problem of where to deposit the excess carbon. Not so sure about the carbon trading schemes tho - seems to me that it would just create another excuse for the westernized nations to bury their head in the sand a bit longer and keep polluting while the poorer developing countries are essentially not allowed to grow indepently. It’s not a good long term solution for sure. Same goes for carbon offsetting for air travel..etc. Giving £5 to plant a tree, won’t really have much of an impact on cancelling out the aeroplane pollution. It’s a nice idea to get people thinking about it, yet once again it just provides a convenient excuse to keep doing whatever we feel like at the expense of the environment.
I think part of the answer has to be in educating people into realising that things can’t continue as they are. Our society grossly encourages consumation of fuels, processed food, money, clothes, products, cheap air travel. A lot of people love the convenience of having all these things available whenever they want them, presumably because they’ve been bought up to love it. Society needs people to live that way of life in order for it to survive economically. Yet, if people continue mindlessly consuming, a point will be reached where not only is it unsustainable to keep going in the same way, but it actually becomes impossible. If people don’t actually try and do something about it soon, then we’ll be forced, not to try do something about it, but to try to survive with what our actions have caused the world to do in order to try and find some sort of equilibrium.
We all have a part to play, as we’re all part of society. Obviously its easier to ‘bury our heads in the sand’ for the time being, and spout off about it now and again! The point is we need to start doing something effective NOW, but perhaps first we have to decide what is actually going to be effective, and what is realistic. Any ideas?
by the way, in case that sounded preachy, just wanted to point out that I own a car, computer, buy various consumer goods..etc. I try and eat local food and recycle and things like that, but obviously could do a lot more. Same as everyone else. am kind of wondering what we can do for the big picture of being living sustainably other than the seemingly token gestures that we make at the moment.