Globalism

[Alceste]

This could be interesting in that, should oil become the basis for that new currency, what would happen when oil prices fall when technology of renewables finally hits?

Which renewable technology are you thinking of?

 

[themadhair]

Which renewable technology are you thinking of?

Any really.

 

[Alceste]

Any really.

My prediction is that oil prices will start rising exponentially in the not too distant future, and no viable alternative energy source (i.e. equally cheap and abundant) will be found. The trend of trying to use food to fuel our cars will cause massive food price hikes all over the world, causing widespread famine and the breakdown of civil order.

Picture the conditions of 07-08 ago when high oil prices encouraged "alternative" energy producers to waste food, causing a global food crisis, and imagine they go on and on, getting worse and worse. That's what the next few decades have in store, (IMHO).

I think the faith we tend to have in the West that "technology will save us" is often counterproductive, and maybe even a bit superstitious, but I'm never averse to hearing about which specific technology is expected to address which specific crisis (and there are so many to choose from!) So far, nobody has been able to deliver on the details.

 

[themadhair]

I think the faith we tend to have in the West that "technology will save us" is often counterproductive, and maybe even a bit superstitious, but I'm never averse to hearing about which specific technology is expected to address which specific crisis (and there are so many to choose from!) So far, nobody has been able to deliver on the details.

This is true, but we do have nuclear to fall back on as France is proving.

 

[Yerda]

My prediction is that oil prices will start rising exponentially in the not too distant future, and no viable alternative energy source (i.e. equally cheap and abundant) will be found. The trend of trying to use food to fuel our cars will cause massive food price hikes all over the world, causing widespread famine and the breakdown of civil order.

I agree, biofuel has awful implications. Starving people to feed cars probably the worst. I don't believe that the inherently disgusting aspects will do a great deal to discourage those who care for profit, however.

I think the faith we tend to have in the West that "technology will save us" is often counterproductive, and maybe even a bit superstitious, but I'm never averse to hearing about which specific technology is expected to address which specific crisis (and there are so many to choose from!) So far, nobody has been able to deliver on the details.

Wind energy could (I've read) potentially meet 5-10% of demand in the near future (though it's not so windy elsewhere as in the UK). Solar power has some limited potential, but it's so bloody expensive. Not so expensive, however, as a collapsed biosphere I hasten to add. Wave power could certainly generate a wee chunk of the supply. I think optimistically, we could get about 15-20% of our needs from carbon free renewables.

So, aye, we're shagged.

 

[Alceste]

This is true, but we do have nuclear to fall back on as France is proving.

Uranium is subject to the same problems as oil. It is a non-renewable resource, and many experts suggest global uranium production peaked as early as 1980. (Don't get me started on the environmental cost.) I don't think replacing one dirty, non-renewable resource with another is going to work. Plus you can't run a tractor or fertilize depleted soil with uranium.

IMO, re-localisation of the food economy, a reversal of population growth (whether intentional or via widespread famine, war and disease) and a drastic reduction in consumption is going to happen. The real choice is whether to take ownership of the terms of these inevitable changes or allow them to happen to us in an uncontrolled, chaotic fashion.

 

[themadhair]

Uranium is subject to the same problems as oil. It is a non-renewable resource, and many experts suggest global uranium production peaked as early as 1980. (Don't get me started on the environmental cost.) I don't think replacing one dirty, non-renewable resource with another is going to work. Plus you can't run a tractor or fertilize depleted soil with uranium.

IMO, re-localisation of the food economy, a reversal of population growth (whether intentional or via widespread famine, war and disease) and a drastic reduction in consumption is going to happen. The real choice is whether to take ownership of the terms of these inevitable changes or allow them to happen to us in an uncontrolled, chaotic fashion.

As I said, France is proving otherwise. Good luck arguing the above with an economy where the vast majority of the power is nuclear.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

This could be interesting in that, should oil become the basis for that new currency, what would happen when oil prices fall when technology of renewables finally hits?

Right now, renewables is a non-issue in that oil is traded on the American dollar. We ship billions of them overseas in order to allow for massive domestic deficit spending. There is no way that America is going to do a thing to promote alternative enrgy until we run out of oil. Or oil producing nations swich from the dollar for oil purchasing. Then get ready for rampant, Weimar Republic like, inflation in America.

It could be that a transition to a Global currency is the only salvation for the Dollar. I haven't researched it much but if China could trade in it's greenbacks for a "Global" then I think we might slide out from under a seriously devalued dollar and the rich nations stay rich.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

This could be interesting in that, should oil become the basis for that new currency, what would happen when oil prices fall when technology of renewables finally hits?

That's the version we have now: in poverty-stricken, desperate nations people earn pennies a day provide labour and resources that profit wealthy consumer nations.

The basic economic reality is that corporations seek to sell the cheapest goods for the highest profit. The status quo encourages enormous wealth disparity between nations, ensuring a virtually limitless supply of cheap labour from elsewhere in the world. Anyone telling you this policy is moving the world into a bright future of economic equality, global prosperity and ideological evolution is bull****ting you.

I'm not sure that paying someone say, $2,000 a year to make sneakers when they were making $200/year is exploitation in a relative sense.

 

[Alceste]

As I said, France is proving otherwise. Good luck arguing the above with an economy where the vast majority of the power is nuclear.

France is proving what, that uranium is not a non-renewable resource, or that global supply didn't peak in the 80s?

 

[Alceste]

I'm not sure that paying someone say, $2,000 a year to make sneakers when they were making $200/year is exploitation in a relative sense.

And sticking the poor and starving into privately owned workhouses wasn't "relative exploitation" when compared to outright slavery. What's your point?

 

[themadhair]

France is proving what, that uranium is not a non-renewable resource, or that global supply didn't peak in the 80s?

Is there really much point in my bothering to explain when you seem intent on throwing up irrelevancies that don't relate to my posts?

 

[Alceste]

Is there really much point in my bothering to explain when you seem intent on throwing up irrelevancies that don't relate to my posts?

You: we do have nuclear to fall back on as France is proving.
Me: Uranium is subject to the same problems as oil. It is a non-renewable resource, and many experts suggest global uranium production peaked as early as 1980.
You: As I said, France is proving otherwise.
Me: France is proving what, that uranium is not a non-renewable resource, or that global supply didn't peak in the 80s?

I'm not seeing the disconnect. Maybe you can point it out to me?

Of course there's a point in "bothering" to explain why the fact that uranium production has supposedly already peaked is not relevant to the argument that nuclear energy is a viable replacement for fossil fuels, which are currently peaking.

Unless of course you'd rather just toss unsubstantiated, speculative opinions out there and hope they stick. I didn't think you were the type, frankly.

 

[themadhair]

You: we do have nuclear to fall back on as France is proving.
Me: Uranium is subject to the same problems as oil. It is a non-renewable resource, and many experts suggest global uranium production peaked as early as 1980.
You: As I said, France is proving otherwise.
Me: France is proving what, that uranium is not a non-renewable resource, or that global supply didn't peak in the 80s?

I'm not seeing the disconnect. Maybe you can point it out to me?

Of course there's a point in "bothering" to explain why the fact that uranium production has supposedly already peaked is not relevant to the argument that nuclear energy is a viable replacement for fossil fuels, which are currently peaking.

Unless of course you'd rather just toss unsubstantiated, speculative opinions out there and hope they stick. I didn't think you were the type, frankly.

You seem so intent on ascribing claims to me that do not follow from what I say. France is proof (yes, proof) that nuclear is an alternative until renewables get off the ground. And since exploration effort for uranium has been practically non-existent for a decade now your whole point falls apart on peak production.

But hey, it is more fun to attack things I did not say nor did I imply.

 

[Alceste]

You seem so intent on ascribing claims to me that do not follow from what I say. France is proof (yes, proof) that nuclear is an alternative until renewables get off the ground. And since exploration effort for uranium has been practically non-existent for a decade now your whole point falls apart on peak production.

But hey, it is more fun to attack things I did not say nor did I imply.

I see: more unsubstatiated claims, spiced up with a bit of indirect ad hominem. Alrighty then. Touchy issue, is it?

 

[themadhair]

I see: more unsubstatiated claims, spiced up with a bit of indirect ad hominem. Alrighty then. Touchy issue, is it?

You could just look up France you know. It was the reason I cited it.

 

[Alceste]

Look up "France"?

Um.... kay. Anything specific I should be looking for? FYI, I do click links.

 

[themadhair]

Look up "France"?

Yep. 87% of the French grid is nuclear.

 

[Alceste]

Yep. 87% of the French grid is nuclear.

OK, so France uses a lot of nuclear power. Therefore?

 

[themadhair]

OK, so France uses a lot of nuclear power. Therefore?

It shows that nuclear is a workable stop gap until renewables. When you consider that no real exploration for uranium has been done for over a decade, then nuclear is certainly in the picture to take over from oil should renewables need a little more time.