Good news - peak oil theory seems to be untrue

[claig]

'The so-called ?peak oil? theory, which suggests that within the foreseeable future the world will run out of fossil fuels ? coal, oil and gas ? has never looked more absurd.'

'The green lobby, of course, is terrified that, despite the promotion of expensive and heavily subsidised wind power at the heart of the Energy Bill ? a subsidy paid to a considerable extent by poor householders through their bills to wealthy landowners with wind turbines ? the emergence of large supplies of cheap gas will make this policy unsustainable.
Hence the scare stories, lapped up by the BBC in particular, about shale oil and gas extraction causing earthquakes and pollution of the water supply.

Needless to say, there is no substance whatever in these scares.'




What will the think tanks and elite lobbies do now in order to stop the growth and progress of ordinary people?


www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2244822/Thought-running-fossil-fuels-New-technology-means-Britain-U-S-tap-undreamed-reserves-gas-oil.html

[claig]

'The problem is that I couldn't care less what you (or anyone else) believes unless you can offer me sound evidence to support it.'

Have you watched the video of Dr Piers Corbyn debating Mr John Ackers? Piers says that carbon dioxide levels have increased over the last decade and yet temperatures have dropped.

[claig]

'My sister has a PhD in geology, and works for Shell's prospecting department. Now, if she'd gone into climate change research instead, do you think she'd have earned more or less?'

Do you really think that she would have deserved more for that?

[claig]

If they really believed that "climate catastrophe" is a bigger threat than World War II etc. and all the other hyperbole that they use, then they would be paying huge money to research what to do about it. But they don't, because it is not as serious as they tell the public.

[MiniTheMinx]

Do we have enough land on which to grow food? Globally and even locally I would argue we do but our use of land is dictated by capitalism and the need to invest capital surpluses. We already import a huge amount of food that is grown in regions that use intensive farming with petro chemicals, we import food that has been grown and beef farmed in regions that have been deforested. In these regions huge harm is done to the environment by huge agro-corps. The local people in those regions are also being exploited to provide us with cheap food and deforestation is hugely damaging to the environment globally and locally. What is more it is totally unnecessary and it isn't feeding those indigenous populations. Brazil can feed brazil, always has without soil erosion. The American's have depleted their soil with their own greed so they look to exploit someone elses.

I agree, farm land should not be used for wind farms and solar factories. Should we build houses on this land ? (ttosca and Claig would agree we should) no we shouldn't be building houses.It is bad for the environment and there are better uses of fertile green land. We have empty houses, we have brown field sites, we have areas in cities that could be redeveloped not to make money for bankers and developers but to house people. The single most effective way of housing everyone is through wealth and property redistribution. The single best way of feeding people without using petro chemicals and fossil fuels is to use the land nearest to us. Hell, we would even be healthier if we ate food in season.

There are whole new blocks of flats in the centre of london that sit empty for half the year, owned by off shore companies based in tax havens and inhabited by wealthy tax dodgers. Just one example.

If less carbon fuels are used in agriculture, food processing and transport then we need less of them, we create less co2.

[claig]

Mini, Dr Piers Corbyn says there is no evidence that C02 drives climate. In fact I think he says it is the other way around.

Why limit growth, increase costs for the poorest and hinder industrialisation and industry based on something which Piers say there is no evidence for?
Why isn't there an open debate on national TV with Piers and other scientists who don't believe a word of it against the scientists who claim it is real?

Why isn't there an inquiry to find out the facts before changing the lives and growth prospects of our entire society?

[claig]

'Why isn't there an open debate on national TV with Piers and other scientists who don't believe a word of it against the scientists who claim it is real?'

The public would watch in their millions. TV comapnies would break all ratings and advertisers would mnake lots of money. But it won't happen, because there will only be one winner and it won't be the spinners.

[claig]

Not the usual faces we see on TV - the lobbyists, action groups and think tanks - but real scientists head to head in real debate. Take teh best scientists from the climate atastrophe side and put them up against the best of the sceptics.

I think it would be no contest, it would be a slam dunk, like eating peas from a pod, and the public would be enlightened as never before.

[MoreBeta]

Boulevard - big firms make money out of Govt largesse being handed out to fund renewable energy. I have just read the new Energy Bill and it is stuffed full of Govt intervention, picking winners and public money being funneled in to ensure that 'we get the green investment we need'.

Big firms just love Govt funded intervention - of course they dont argue against it. Nice guaranteed returns with all the risk and cost being pushed on to taxpayers/consumers.

We have seen this before with the push for nuclear power in the 1950s onward.

[MiniTheMinx]

Yes, but you would see new roads being built, new housing, new factories, sofas etc.......there is no need what so ever for this other than the money-go-round.

If people can not meet their basic costs because those cost are rising be it housing costs or fuel, as you rightly point out, that is because capitalists are in competition with each other for the few spare coppers in your pocket. Who will fund the building of new housing, on whose land will they be built?

If we need more housing it is because we have a problem with immigration, caused by globalisation. The very thing that prevents us sustaining our own food security is the same thing that means we have to build more housing stock. And the answer is to put people into work building homes for immigrants? How long will that boom sustain itself. We have a capital absorption problem....historically property development has mopped this up and made huge profits whilst generating huge debt for others. Far better that land be made available for farming. Put people back on the land not petro chemicals.

In regards to Co2, there is evidence that it drives climatic change. I do agree with you that it doesn't appear to drive global "warming" (i'm sure i made that clear before) If it hadn't driven climatic "change" in the past then I guess that thousands of years ago when asteroids hit earth and volcanic activity was intense that no such change ever occurred. But it has, massive floods in Egypt, skating on the Thames, an ice age, Romans growing grapes in Yorkshire or wherever, the gulf stream switching off in the 18th century. Climate change happens, has always happened and is a largely natural phenomena. We have always had variable amounts of Co2. But carbon fuels are still finite.

[BoulevardOfBrokenSleep]

I think it was you, morebeta, who made the point way up there ^ that we change from one energy source to another as technology moves on. But the change is usually associated with big upheavals in society, right?

So given that we're currently at/near the top of the global pecking order, I'd suggest we ought to try our damndest to be in at the start of the next energy party - which means green investment. We don't want to be missing out on the 21stC equivalent of the Industrial Revolution...

[MiniTheMinx]

Well said Morebeta In fact Claig maybe right in one respect, that the big global corps fund research that will have governments in panic mode shovelling public money into investing in the latest capitalists expansion plans. They are running out of areas of investment......we now have fuel and green energy, welfare, education and health, can't think what else that floating capital can be invested in to make a return? neither can they which is why we are seeing floating surpluses sitting beside ever more impoverished states.

[BoulevardOfBrokenSleep]

mini - yes, CO2 varies, but the evidence suggests it has never varied by this much in this short a space of time.

When human populations adapted to changing climate (eg Ice Age), they would have done so by migrating slowly (ie on foot!) and adapting gradually, because the temperature change was relatively slow.

The current change is happening quickly - it's just the blink of an eye in geologic time - and we have stuff like borders and visas that stop people moving any real distance.

Also, off the top of my head, I think it's too late to 'maintain' food security in the UK. Isn't the amount of land required to sustain London alone, bigger than the whole of the UK?

[claig]

Governments should build new council houses on the land instead of covering it with solar panels. They can buy the land from the farmers. Developers can buy teh land too and build new towns with better accommodation so that the many people living in bedsits because there ar e not enough homes can be housed.

We can increase the quality of life of our people and put tens of thousands back to work in building new homes and infrastructure and hospitals for the public.

We can stop the nimbyism of the haves and provide a better life for the have-nots. We can stop the green limits to growth and grow once again in a prosperous, successful land. The greens won't like it, the elite won't too, but the people will love it as they are back in work with money on their pockets and are building a better Britain for all.

The more homes we build, the more the cost of housing will decline and the more of our young people will be able to afford homes.

Let's serve our people, not our elites. Let's not doff our caps to the elites who are holding back the progress and prosperity of the people.

Let's not fall prey to spinners who tell us yarns that lower our growth and empty our barns.

[BoulevardOfBrokenSleep]

and if I didn't type so slowly, I might be responding to the last post, instead of the last but two one

[BoulevardOfBrokenSleep]

claig, I'm just a person, you don't have to address me like a convention centre

[claig]

'claig, I'm just a person, you don't have to address me like a convention centre '

Sorry, I didn't realise that. From the way that you posted, I thought you were a convention centre, which is why I addressed you in that fashion.

[Redbindy]

Claig - if we build more homes the value of mine will decrease.

[claig]

Redbindy, that is right. But we can't limit the life chances of our young people and our homeless and our poor just because it enriches some of us. There is a balance to be struck and we must offer growth and a good life for all our people.

We mustn't fall for divide and rule. We really are all in this together.

[claig]

Few of us are millionaires, few of us receive astronomical bonus and threaten to leave the country if our bonuses are cut or if tighter regulation is imposed on us. We use public services and rely on quality service.

As Alexandre Dumas wrote "one for all and all for one".
I think he may have also penned the line "and don't let the buggers spin you and grind you down".

[Redbindy]

Claig- being rich (and I'm not) doesn't limit the life chances of others- socialism does. What wealth does is give people something to aim for.

[MiniTheMinx]

Look where Keynes landed us we have claig ! You can build everyone a home and a few roads.......what then, knock it down and build another for lack of anything constructive and economically useful to do?

[MiniTheMinx]

being rich (and I'm not) doesn't limit the life chances of others- socialism does. What wealth does is give people something to aim for now we have an American dreamer.

Trickle down economics doesn't work.......it's been tried since Thatcher gave birth to it 30 years ago. keynes doesn't work because it's been proven to end in tears.....socialism, well who knows because no one has yet experienced it.

[claig]

'what then, knock it down and build another for lack of anything constructive and economically useful to do?'

Not at all. Build factories to create employment. Produce new gadgets that enhance people's lives and that make us more productive. Build more schools and employ more teachers so that class sizes are reduced in order that our population gets a better education so that we once again become teh creative engine of the world. Build cheap governemnt tablets and laptops and give them free to every child. Invest in our future. Repair the potholes in our roads, fix teh leaks in our water pipes so that we no longer have to pay such high water costs etc.

Don't talk the country down, don't talk the economy down, don't talk growth down, don't talk Britain down, don't talk the planet down. There is no climate catastrophe round the corner, stop the talk of doom and gloom and return to a boom that offers hope for all our people.

Think positive, stop the spin, let's have an attitude of can-do, and stop finding 100 reasons for can-don't.

[Redbindy]

Great thinking Claig - who's going to pay for all this?

[claig]

'Claig- being rich (and I'm not) doesn't limit the life chances of others- socialism does.'

There is nothing wrong with being rich. It's great if you can be rich. But, being rich, does not give anyone the right to hinder the prospects of those who aren't. It's not right to stop others have homes just because the price of your might fall.

That is the whole ethos of teh super mega rich who don't want the population to grow and increase their prosperity and demands and expectations, because it will lead to less wealth for the elite. They don't want the plebs to rise above their station. We cannot let them stop progress.