[bruss01]

Typhoon,

Your questions are akin to asking hypothetical questions on whether a person could survive their house catching on fire. Yes, hypothetically a person could put the fire out, or call 911 and have the fire department put the fire out, could walk out of the house, or could escape thru a window. These hypothetical questions fail to take into account that in actual fact, the homeowner is deeply asleep, wearing earplugs so they don't hear the smoke detector, living on a floor high enough that any attempt to jump would prove fatal. He will not realize until too late that there is a problem requiring his attention. His choices have effectively cut off his avenues of escape.

This is essentially the situation regarding peak oil. Yes, we could've built more nuclear plants, yes we could have worked harder on developing fusion, yes we could have made our energy devices more efficient, yes we could have put more into electric cars and renewable resources. BUT WE DIDN'T. Setting up the new infrastructure will require more time and more energy than we have available to build it. We have painted ourselves into a corner through our own neglect and inattention. Our choices have effectively cut off our avenues of escape.

Bottom line: our way of life will not go on in an uninterrupted fashion, barring a major miracle. There will be severe hardship and most likely far fewer people on the other side once the dust settles.

[Seadragon]

That's entirely correct--we didn't do it then, and we sure are not doing anything NOW.

[miniTAX]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('bruss01', 'Y')our questions are akin to asking hypothetical questions on whether a person could survive their house catching on fire. Yes, hypothetically a person could put the fire out, or call 911 and have the fire department put the fire out, could walk out of the house, or could escape thru a window. These hypothetical questions fail to take into account that in actual fact, the homeowner is deeply asleep, wearing earplugs so they don't hear the smoke detector, living on a floor high enough that any attempt to jump would prove fatal. He will not realize until too late that there is a problem requiring his attention. His choices have effectively cut off his avenues of escape.

[miniTAX]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('JustinFrankl', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('miniTAX', 'P')eak Oil forgot to tell we're are special ALSO because we, 21st century humans have largescale democracy, modern medicine, widespread literacy, unprecedented technology, the Internet and so on...

Maybe it conveniently forgot all that to make its cause more vocal.

[miniTAX]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('coyote', 'H')mm, so the environment is destroyed and used up in poor countries. Who is it that's doing the destroying? Is it all those poor people? Or could it possibly have something to do with exceedingly wealthy multinational corporations, who continually search for the cheapest products around the globe, taking advantage of looser environmental restrictions? Globalization, you know, been in the papers lately.

[coyote]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('miniTAX', 'N')o, bad governance does more harm to the environment than globalization. Which does not mean that globalization must not be improved. And which does certainly not mean that it must be replaced.

[Ludi]

Don't confuse the terms "fair trade" and "free trade." There is very little fair trade in the world today. Lots of "free trade" which is simply corporations bulldozing the people to get their way. Fair trade helps the common people. Examples of fair trade include co-ops and workers owned businesses. Global corporations are not an example of fair trade, usually.

[miniTAX]

Coyote,
Thank you for taking time replying to me with documented argumentation.
As for Madagascar :
Madagascar has begun its decline right after independance from French colons. I have grand parents who had been there and describe an immensely rich country with a mineral plenty soil.
And for more than 30 years since its independance in 1960, it lived mostly isolated from the world with a communist leaned policy. When it started to open, it was already in bad shape, with its forests clear cut, its unique indigenous animal species almost exterminated. Some new natural reserves have been set recently, but by far insufficiently to recover from the irreversible damages done to nature due to extreme poverty and over-population. Saying that its dire straits are cause by globalization is simply a gross exageration.

As for the IMF:
The IMF puts its nose in a countrie's affairs when things go sour by definition. And I don't reject that its medicine are many times unadequate and do a lot of harm. But how can it be otherwise when its role is curative and never preventive ?
Don't forget that the IMF intervenes in countries already very indebted and with structural economics problems.
Don't also forget that IMF has succeeded in many countries like Korea, Vietnam, Thailand, Argentina. And in the course, you can't only count victims because those countries, often with bad government have done harm to their people even before the IMF intervene. You must also count the beneficiaries, short term and long term of a good economics policy.
Rejecting the faults on globalization is almost equivalent to giving a good excuse for dictators to rip off the wealth of their countries : we are poor, we are indebted, that's the fault of globalisation and international agencies. EASY.
For example, Nigeria which is one of the poorest african countries and has the biggest debt the African continent ever had is immensely rich in oil. Algeria is a big gaz exporter has an iddle and desperate youth, all the same for Indonesia, a gaz and oil rich country but one of the most corrupt one. Sudan is an immensely vast and rich country but submerged by famine and violence due to ethnic conflict (see Darfour)...
You see, the third world situation is much more disparat and complex than a simple problem of North-South exploitation.

As for India :
India has recently opened its economies after year of socialist (soviet inspired) autartic policy, just like the above example of Madagascar. I'm surprised that you don't know that it's one of the main beneficiary of globalization. It belongs to a group of countries called BRIC (Brazil, Russia, India, China), future global power players due to their huge population and territories. You can find a description of India in Wikipedia or by searching by Google (india + globalization). Or right now, you can have news and reports about BRIC on the BBC.

As for poverty :
Don't get me wrong. I didn't say that globalization bring prosperity to everyone. It's simply not true. I travel a lot, and I see changes, sometimes for the worse, sometimes for the better. In some countries, there is more prosperity, in others poverty is aggravating, almost always because of overpopulation. In some countries, globalization is very important in the local economy, in others not much.
But showing me something like the distance beetwen the richest and poorest countries is definitely insufficient : simply because humanity is richer now than ever before. Even the level of poverty is just a statistical measure : it equals half the median income (someone under this level is considered as "poor"). The US for example has a very high GDP, so the level poverty is very high (around 21.000$ per house hold compared to France's 14.000$ ) which means that a "poor" american has the same revenue as a French low income household and the same resources as a rich Indonesian.
The gap widen not always because the poor are poorer but ALSO because the rich get richer. What is to blame for that ? An economy where people can't dream of beeing richer even if they are "already" rich is a communist enonomy doomed for failure.
And to stick to facts, your quote tells about Life Expectancy, Infant mortality and Literacy. But don't you see that they all progress, even if the RATE of progress is slower ? What does it mean, that the world become poorer ? I don't think so. Maybe it's just like tennis playing : you first progress very fast because you come from nothing, and then the RATE of progress slow as you reach a good level ? Well, I said that just as a logic asumption, but I have no proof of that, just as you have no proof that a slower progression of these indicators mean that poverty is rampant.

As a conclusion, I would say the panorama of the consequences of globalization is mixed and much more complex than just a set of bad influence on poor countries as you seem to state. Maybe 21th century globalization is just like 20 th century communism. Something to ostracize and to combat because people need something to be a scapegoat.
Communism (or islamism) is the right target.
I'm not sure globalization, regarding its complex implications, is the right one also.

[miniTAX]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ludi', 'D')on't confuse the terms "fair trade" and "free trade." There is very little fair trade in the world today. Lots of "free trade" which is simply corporations bulldozing the people to get their way. Fair trade helps the common people. Examples of fair trade include co-ops and workers owned businesses. Global corporations are not an example of fair trade, usually.

[Novus]

Let MiniTax believe whatever he wants. He seems to have taken one too many Blue pills.

The truth remains that you cannot have infinate growth in a finite world. There is no alternative energy supply, renewable resource, or techno fix that will ever change that. I am sure there were people like him on Easter Island pointing to the last stand of trees and urging us to cut them down and singing about how their problems were solved. The truth was they were in overshoot and so are we. Our current consumption rates are based on draw down rather than sustainability.

[coyote]

Well, miniTAX, I guess we've hijacked this thread pretty good. (Sorry guys, heat of the argument and all that...) You had some solid points in your response, but I think at the heart of it we just disagree about what those numbers mean. I'm sure we'll probably resume the discussion at a later time in a more appropriate thread -- for now, perhaps we should end with the point we both clearly agree on: that this is, indeed, a very complex issue. Sound fair?

[eastbay]

1. Do you deny that we can greatly expand the use of nuclear power and renewable energy?

2. Do you deny that these solutions are cheap enough to replace the use of oil?

3. Do you deny that the resource for these forms of energy is, for all intents and purposes, unlimited?

4. Do you deny that electric automobiles are viable (not to mention fuel cells)?

5. If you answered "no" to all of the above, do you deny that the issue of peak oil can easily be resolved?

""""""""""""""""""""""

1. No. We cannot greatly increase nuclear power and renewable energies. Uranium is finite. Reserves of uranium are very limited. There simply isn't enough of it to replace even a small portion of the energy we extract from oil and even then it'll only be for a few decades at most. References to this fact are numerous. Renewables? Like what. Wind? Ok, try manufacturing the windmills without oil. Bio fuels? Try growing enough to power anything on a mass scale without natural gas-based fertilizers. Solar? Lol. Try driving a solar powered 80,000 lb truck on solar... or flying a solar-powered airplane.

2. Post oil, the cost of the power produced from any known 'alternative' will be so astronomical that it will render the energy extracted as solely for military use or possibly as entertainment for the very wealthy.

3. Yes, I sure do.

4. Well you have me there. Electric cars and even motorcycles certainly work. Yup. But imagine how much coal will need to be ignited in power plants to produce enough to allow LA traffic to keep moving at 75 mph. Imagine how much coal burning it will take to power the roughly 1 billion cars on the worlds roads. And again, try flying an electric-powered airplane or an electric powered big-rig truck... or electric powered farm equipment... well, actually, electric-powered farm equipment won't be needed because there'll be no more farming due to no more cheap and easy nat gas or oil-based fertilizers.

5. There is no solution this time.

[Leanan]

1. Do you deny that we can greatly expand the use of nuclear power and renewable energy?

Depends on what you mean by "greatly." We can certainly expand it. But materials (metals, concrete, etc.) are limited, and will be more limited as oil grows more scarce.

2. Do you deny that these solutions are cheap enough to replace the use of oil?

Absolutely I do.

3. Do you deny that the resource for these forms of energy is, for all intents and purposes, unlimited?

Yes, I do.

4. Do you deny that electric automobiles are viable (not to mention fuel cells)?

Yes, if there's no cheap oil with which to make them.

5. If you answered "no" to all of the above, do you deny that the issue of peak oil can easily be resolved?

Sorry, I answered "yes."

I took this photo when I went home to Hawaii for Christmas:



Click here for a larger version.

It's the windfarm at Kau, built in 1986. Most of the turbines no longer work. Many of the rusting hulks no longer have any blades at all. There's talk of replacing them, but I don't know if it will ever happen.

Only 20 years old, and already decrepit. How are we going to maintain our infrastructure without cheap oil, let alone build new?

[miniTAX]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Leanan', 'O')nly 20 years old, and already decrepit. How are we going to maintain our infrastructure without cheap oil, let alone build new?

[eastbay]

Ok, these blades seem to have a 25 year lifespan , or thereabouts. In 25 or 50 years from now, what will be used to manufacture the steel for the towers, blades and other mill components and the delivery of these components up the high hills or to isolated locations and offshore locations? Electric ships and heavy trucks? That will be a neat trick.

Steel and other metal production as well as it's mining (or remelting) and transportation requires an incredible amount of oil and is required for the construction of windmills. Is it possible that wind power is basically only a creative way to stretch electricity production a few more months or years past the oil peak?

I suppose we should try anything, but placing our trust in the our energy future in windmills seems like... well, simply jousting at windmills.

[Leanan]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I') think it's just a matter of oil price.

[miniTAX]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('eastbay', 'I') suppose we should try anything, but placing our trust in the our energy future in windmills seems like... well, simply jousting at windmills.

[miniTAX]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Leanan', '
')If that's the Danish windfarm I read about, its existence is due more to government subsidies than private investors.

[Leanan]

I think it's going to be harder and harder for nations to subsidize energy. You see that already with developing countries. Even oil-rich Iraq has been forced to raise the price of gasoline, and the people are furious.

The breaking point, I suspect, will be when the average citizen cannot afford whatever it takes to use the energy. (A car, perhaps. Or just the monthly power bill.) They will not want to pay taxes so rich people can still drive their limos. Even if they are hybrid limos.