[GHung]

Here's the thing O_S, as long as we validate the liars and deceivers such as ennui we validate their lies. Ennui has told several lies (no better name for it) about some of us and moves on as if there's any truth there. I dare him to show where I've EVER suggested that people shouldn't be free to live their lives as they see fit, but he implies that I said that. He's lying. He says I'm drumming: "I'm a doomer and my lifestyle is better than yours".... I dare him to find one comment where I claim that my life is better than everyone else's. He takes my response of " My life is at least as good, and better for me; not the dismal, austere life some assume it is..." and flips it, again implying I said something I didn't. Either his filters are dysfunctional, or he's intentionally fomenting a falsehood, AKA lying.

He says: "It's holier-than-thou and one-size-fits-all self-help advice..." Again, I challenge him to show where I've said "one size fits all". I know better.

He clearly doesn't like me pointing out that our current society will undergo a simplification process, a decline in terms of resource availability and consumption; that folks may be better off if they accept that and begin making other arrangements; that society as a collective will have an easier transition if more people are aware that their world is likely to change in very predictable, and unpredictable, ways. In short, I'm urging the unprepared to be more prepared and less vulnerable to change. He insinuates that I'm dictating some sort of mandate. I certainly have never said that ennui SHOULD do this or that. His assertions that I've taken that tack are, indeed, dishonest.

If he wants to claim that I think he's dishonest (assuming all along 'he' is a he), for once, he has a valid claim. I think this person is dishonest. He has lots of company in a society that doesn't have the courage to be honest with itself about some very crucial issues, so many make an art of shooting messengers; indeed, an industry of doing so. At that, he's very adept.

[JV153]

Ennui2,

Yes, I included fracking in the current methods but fracking again has even heavier resource demands (fracking sand, solvents, water, explosives, heavy drilling with huge diesel motors, labor).
Fracking is so new ? It's 1949 stuff.

http://aoghs.org/technology/hydraulic-fracturing/
Uhoh..gasbuggy.. http://aoghs.org/technology/project-gasbuggy/

New technology might come in with newer seismographic equipment, but there are very heavy resource demands to get at that oil. As it is, the US is looking at a big collapse in oil and natural gas production within 10 years due to rapid depletion rates from fracked wells.
Outside the Bazhenov (risked 74.6 billion barrels recoverable shale oil and 285 Tcf of recoverable natural gas) in Russia there are no significant fracking-suitable deposits and as far as I know the Russians are using some kind of hydraulic fracturing, just not with the noxious solvents.
This is course is based on internet research as nobody I know ever talks about oil, oil fields, or recovery methods. Is it real - what is real ? *ahem*

That's not the end of the world - so you drive half as much - there you go, 50% fuel savings, or you ride the bike, or take a subway or bus, easily done right ?. But what happens when heavy equipment with more regular use is involved - farm equipment, fertilizer for fields, trucking crops from the fields, grading of country dirt roads or maintaining asphalt roads, buses, snow removal, garbage removal, mail delivery, taxi service, airport activities, mining crawler-tractors, delivery of heavy appliances- or cases of increasing fuel use - drilling new wells for water in parched areas or building new houses (with all the associated infrastructure) for an increasing population.

[GregT]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('ennui2', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('GHung', '
')I'm always miffed at the implication that a high-consumption BAU lifestyle is the only way to "enjoy life a lot more".

[StarvingLion]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('GregT', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('ennui2', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('GHung', '
')I'm always miffed at the implication that a high-consumption BAU lifestyle is the only way to "enjoy life a lot more".

[kublikhan]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote(' Outcast_Searcher', 'I')t's a shame that education and awareness of the scientific realities (long term) won't get the vast majority of people to VOLUNTARILY live a (at least relatively) powered-down lifestyle. Given the vast propensity of people to buy everything they can afford (and borrow) to "better the life" of their families -- I just don't see that happening. Ever. No matter how bad climate change gets.

[Pops]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('GHung', '@')Pops - They're doing regular posts and articles as well. Maybe some of us need to go over there and jump-start their comments; stir the pot a bit:)

[Paulo1]

Powerdown aspect:

My wife and I live a somewhat alternate lifestyle. However, I would be the first to admit that we are still ff users and greatly benefit by this technology and source of energy. Nevertheless, we still have deliberately chosen to use less and live differently. This morning it was 4 deg C. I hear the 'fridge running, there is one small cf bulb going over the stove, and the woodstove has made the house toasty warm cosy. Our friends and family come over and take away 'an impression' that it is possible to retreat from the rat race and live very well on a lot less. That is all we try and do as far as spreading 'the word'.

My best friend has just lost his $150,000/yr job. He has $20,000 in the bank, a $200,000 mortgage on a condo and fixed costs of $2500 per month. He does have some investments, but in this economy they are dubious at best. We are close to the same age and have shared the same career in the past. The difference between us has been consumption and lifestyle. He has always bought stuff and spent money like a fiend, and my wife and I have chosen a more realistic path that does not include winter vacations in California, etc. If you spend your entire life indulging yourself, then when the train stops be prepared to get off with empty pockets and an unsupportable lifestyle. I have never made the kind of money my buddy has these past 10 years. Never. But we retired 3 years ago because we powered down 10 years ago. He is now forced to scramble to stay afloat.

The main reason for this difference is my reading the Long Emergency what? 10 years ago? This set me on an investigation of PO and all the readings and data included. Far from being a bad thing, understanding PO set us on a path to success. There are limits to growth, and while all the prognostications have not unfolded as predicted by PO authors, the basic tenets are indisputable: There are indeed limits, the modern world uses too many resources, we must live differently, and it is possible to so and live well provided you reduce ahead of time in a deliberate and thought out manner. I really don't see why this is so unacceptable for so many people?

[Tanada]

Question for those in the oil refining business. I know that they can use cracking towers to break the very long crude molecules down to more useful Diesel/Kerosene/Gasoline length and that syncrude plants can take Methane and convert it into the same fuels. Why can't you use the condensate fractions as an intermediate in a syncrude plant the same way you can use Methane as a starting point?

[ennui2]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('GHung', '
')Again, I challenge him to show where I've said "one size fits all". I know better.

[C8]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('kublikhan', 'S')adly true. So instead of relying on bottom up voluntary cuts, we should use top down mandatory cuts. Look at the results of California's water conservation programs. The mandatory programs saw actual cuts in consumption. The voluntary programs saw increases.

[Ibon]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('ennui2', ' ') Nobody wants to reduce their share of the pie as long as someone else is cutting a big slice. So nothing ever gets done..

[ennui2]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('C8', '
')1. They hit the poor the hardest- Poor people are much more harmed by reduced water use and are forgoing showers- the wealthy in CA are still surrounded by lush gardens and acres of golf courses.

[ennui2]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ibon', 'T')he emerging millennials will be far better socialized and their values will reflect this when they reach Al Gore's age.

[kublikhan]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('C8', 'N')ot in agreement here with this sentiment. Mandatory cuts have many negative aspects:

1. They hit the poor the hardest- Poor people are much more harmed by reduced water use and are forgoing showers- the wealthy in CA are still surrounded by lush gardens and acres of golf courses.

2. They encourage a black market which is a net drain on resources (and law enforcement)

3. They do not spur innovation the way higher prices do since the cuts are usually temporary and in only one region

4. They dangerously increase the authoritarian role of government over the people and pave the way towards a dictatorship by legally creating many govt. powers that previously did not exist or were not exercised

5. MOST ALL, THEY ARE UNNECESSARY AS WE ARE FREELY MOVING TOWARDS A LOWER PER-CAPITA ENERGY LIFESTYLE

[Ibon]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('ennui2', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ibon', 'T')he emerging millennials will be far better socialized and their values will reflect this when they reach Al Gore's age.

[C8]

Regarding the issue of govt. interference essentially hurting the poor the most- how could it not? Laws are lobbied for and voted on by the wealthy and the upper middle class. The "green" movement is and upper income white constituency- this point is very critical. I do not want to derail this thread further so I will start a new thread about the subject tilted "Green legislation mainly helps the affluent"

[ennui2]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('C8', 'R')egarding the issue of govt. interference essentially hurting the poor the most- how could it not?

[ralfy]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('C8', 'R')egarding the issue of govt. interference essentially hurting the poor the most- how could it not? Laws are lobbied for and voted on by the wealthy and the upper middle class. The "green" movement is and upper income white constituency- this point is very critical. I do not want to derail this thread further so I will start a new thread about the subject tilted "Green legislation mainly helps the affluent"

[Revi]

Of course the rich will be able to live a lifestyle much like what we live today. The rest of us will be in abject poverty, which uses a lot less energy. That's just the way it works. It stinks, but there won't be much done about it. Look at Europe. All those refugees aren't using much gas and oil right now, are they? Meanwhile there are people living a modern lifestyle in the countries where they are landing. Will the refugees end up living like the rich? We'll see... I suspect not.