Global Warming and possible energy crisis
 

This may go slightly off topic in some aspects and I'll try to be brief
in my thoughts and concerns, but I don't know whether it's guilt or just
a case of not being able to make sense of it, that I can't get it out
of my head, hence the posting as I present myself on usw's couch for
therapy :-)

It appears to me "we" are saying one thing and doing another in the wide
scheme of things. On one hand we are getting a daily bashing about the
greenhouse emission we are all producing with our cars, homes and planes
etc, yet how ever much we as individuals can reduce our own levels, both
the increase in usage and global spread of industrialization turns the
ratio into a one step forward two steps back scenario. Only this week
the European Countries have been putting pressure on Putin (Russia)
about securing a free market and subsequent supplies of Gas from the
east. Have we now come to the point where the UK/Europe can no longer
support itself with the fossil fuels it requires and will depend more
and more on Countries further afield? Politically this is extremely
worrying and is the makings of wars in the big scheme of things if
things spiral out of control for whatever reason. The Iraq conflict
arguably fits into this scenario.

A big question in my mind is how many years has the planet got left of
fossil fuels (Gas/Oil in particular ?) What ever the figure, surely
assuming we burn the lot, we have then reached the maximum possible
emissions of Co2 output and the scientists nightmare scenario is far
worse than it is now.

What worries me is I can't see an answer, it will only stop when mankind
starts to wipe itself out, or more than likely the planet we have on
loan. I really don't see any viable alternative energy sources that
will seriously feel the gap for our needs and as for the greenhouse
tax's, what a joke, meaningless, it doesn't stop the emissions!

I'm sure someone (or two) will put me straight on some of my thoughts,
tell me i don't know what I'm talking about as far as a fuel crisis is
concerned or say I'm a fascist or something grin, but I just don't see
how "we" are going to stop this roller coaster ride of global warming.

--
Keith (Southend)
http://www.southendweather.net
e-mail: kreh at southendweather dot net

Global Warming and possible energy crisis
 

In message , "Keith (Southend)"
writes

A big question in my mind is how many years has the planet got left of
fossil fuels (Gas/Oil in particular ?) What ever the figure, surely
assuming we burn the lot, we have then reached the maximum possible
emissions of Co2 output and the scientists nightmare scenario is far
worse than it is now.


There's huge amounts of fossil fuels apart from conventional oil and
gas. There's coal. There's oil shales and tar sands. There's orimulsion.
(I recently saw a statement that the Orinoco Belt, not the Persian Gulf,
has the world's largest oil reserves, which I guess comes down to
whether or not you count orimulsion.) There's methane clathrates. We
might run out of clean and cheap fossil fuels, but we aren't going to
run out of fossil fuels in general in the near future.
--
Stewart Robert Hinsley

Global Warming and possible energy crisis
 

Keith (Southend) wrote:
This may go slightly off topic in some aspects and I'll try to be brief
in my thoughts and concerns [...]

A big question in my mind is how many years has the planet got left of
fossil fuels (Gas/Oil in particular ?) What ever the figure, surely
assuming we burn the lot, we have then reached the maximum possible
emissions of Co2 output and the scientists nightmare scenario is far
worse than it is now.

There remains (allegedly) 30+ years of oil and gas in the North Sea.
The plan is indeed to burn the lot. There is also a plan to do so using a
carbon capture method, with my local power station destined to be the first to
be converted.
I have no view on whether carbon capture 'works' in planetary terms.

What worries me is I can't see an answer, it will only stop when mankind
starts to wipe itself out, or more than likely the planet we have on
loan.


It is not unreasonable that if 'we' mess with the planetary systems, then the
systems will in turn mess with us. It seems that evolution demands extinction
at some point, especially for species with no other form of population
limitation controls (no predators). If that is the case, then it does not need
to be worried about.


I really don't see any viable alternative energy sources that
will seriously feel the gap for our needs and as for the greenhouse
tax's, what a joke, meaningless, it doesn't stop the emissions!


Again, population explosion may be considered the cause, rather than the
emissions themselves. By that, I mean it is the scale of say the CO2, not the CO2.

I think some 20% of Scotland's energy is from 'alternative' sources, and given
that Scotland produces several times more energy than it uses, it is a good
model for viable alternatives. However, electricity is of less use if the oil
runs out as many electrical devices are made from oil products.

I note that 'people' do not want wind farms etc., but they don't want nuclear
power stations either, or even 'ordinary' power stations. My local power
station is large and unsightly, warms the sea locally and affects wildlife, and
its chimney belches yellow smoke occasionally, and it (the chimmney) is visible
for miles around. Equally, 'people' do not want the lights to go out but do not
want to do anything about it.

I'm sure someone (or two) will put me straight on some of my thoughts,

Not me!


--
Gianna

Global Warming and possible energy crisis
 

It's probably stupid idealistic naiveity but I've often wondered why
renewables can't eventually produce 100% of the world's energy requirements.

Enough pump storage systems could surely buffer the demands of the
'Eastenders' broadcast on a cold Boxing day.
Enough tidal power systems would surely provide an entirely predictable
power generation source most of the time.
Enough investment into Hydrogen fuel systems for our automobile usage etc
would mean zero CO2 outputs in the long term.

Leaving the oil for making children's toys.

Ross

-------------------------------------------------


I think some 20% of Scotland's energy is from 'alternative' sources, and
given
that Scotland produces several times more energy than it uses, it is a
good
model for viable alternatives. However, electricity is of less use if the
oil
runs out as many electrical devices are made from oil products.

Gianna

Global Warming and possible energy crisis
 

"newsposter" wrote in message
...
It's probably stupid idealistic naiveity but I've often wondered why
renewables can't eventually produce 100% of the world's energy
requirements.

Enough pump storage systems could surely buffer the demands of the
'Eastenders' broadcast on a cold Boxing day.
Enough tidal power systems would surely provide an entirely predictable

A company which operates near here - http://www.engb.com/ has spent a lot
of their own and gov money on tidal energy.

They have concluded that it is not a viable source of significant amounts of
energy

David b

Global Warming and possible energy crisis
 

David B wrote:
"newsposter" wrote in message
...
It's probably stupid idealistic naiveity but I've often wondered why
renewables can't eventually produce 100% of the world's energy
requirements.

Enough pump storage systems could surely buffer the demands of the
'Eastenders' broadcast on a cold Boxing day.
Enough tidal power systems would surely provide an entirely predictable

A company which operates near here - http://www.engb.com/ has spent a lot
of their own and gov money on tidal energy.

They have concluded that it is not a viable source of significant amounts of
energy


Meanwhile, at Scapa Flow, the reverse applies and wave energy is considered both
viable and highly significant. The possibility of exporting surplus to the
mainland (Europe) has been mentioned.


--
Gianna
(in the interests of balance)

Global Warming and possible energy crisis
 

Global warming does not have to be a problem for mankind as long as we
prepare for what we will need to do to adapt, and start preparing now. I
think we are too far gone to stop anthropogenic global warming, not with the
likes of China and India only now just beginning to come online
economically. They will follow the easiest route to industrialisation, which
is burning fossil fuels, and we can't deny them that route. It does'nt mean
that we should not bother to take into greater consideration the environment
today, I just think we now need to prepare and realise that we are going to
have to face the repurcussions of past and present industrialisation. I
think we'll need to learn to accept and adapt to the fact that we're going
to lose large areas of several of our major cities to the sea, we'll lose
our present landscape as trees die etc, not being able to deal with the
speed of the change, but agriculturally by changing the crops we use, in
areas of the world where agriculture remains or newly becomes viable, it is
feasable we could manage. I reckon global warming will no doubt cause
conflict, but if we are going to adapt and survive the world will have to
take globalisation up a gear and come togethor politically globally, so that
we can work togethor so that people don't starve in some countries (while
other countries reap the benefits, e.g more advantagous growing seasons).
Who knows, us guys in the UK may all have to move to Spain or North Africa
to escape those advancing glaciers if the Gulf Stream shuts off, that will
take a fair bit of political co-operation! I saw a programme a BBC couple of
years ago which said that mankind was nearly wiped out by some natural
disaster tens of thousand years ago (may have been disease), and numbers
fell to just a couple of thousand, only the strongest most adaptable and
innovative survived. But with foresight (we know it's probably on its way),
science, technology, and political dexterity, we have developed the tools
over the past 6,000 years to limit the natural repurcussions we will
experience in the new few hundred years. Realistically I think it's going to
take a few more Hurricane Katrina style wake up calls before the poilticians
are driven into action because the people have the will. Unfortunately the
biggest losers will be the flora and fauna, that won't be able to adapt,
we're probably going to see a lot of diversity being destroyed, and the
world will be a lot duller for it. But for mankind I think there will be
winners and losers. And it will be a valuable test for how to deal with
natural climate change when that eventually happens!


"Gianna" wrote in message
...
David B wrote:
"newsposter" wrote in message
...
It's probably stupid idealistic naiveity but I've often wondered why
renewables can't eventually produce 100% of the world's energy
requirements.

Enough pump storage systems could surely buffer the demands of the
'Eastenders' broadcast on a cold Boxing day.
Enough tidal power systems would surely provide an entirely predictable

A company which operates near here - http://www.engb.com/ has spent a
lot of their own and gov money on tidal energy.

They have concluded that it is not a viable source of significant amounts
of energy


Meanwhile, at Scapa Flow, the reverse applies and wave energy is
considered both viable and highly significant. The possibility of
exporting surplus to the mainland (Europe) has been mentioned.


--
Gianna
(in the interests of balance)

Global Warming and possible energy crisis
 

"Gianna" wrote in message
...
David B wrote:
"newsposter" wrote in message
...
It's probably stupid idealistic naiveity but I've often wondered why
renewables can't eventually produce 100% of the world's energy
requirements.

Enough pump storage systems could surely buffer the demands of the
'Eastenders' broadcast on a cold Boxing day.
Enough tidal power systems would surely provide an entirely predictable

A company which operates near here - http://www.engb.com/ has spent a
lot of their own and gov money on tidal energy.

They have concluded that it is not a viable source of significant amounts
of energy


Meanwhile, at Scapa Flow, the reverse applies and wave energy is
considered both viable and highly significant. The possibility of
exporting surplus to the mainland (Europe) has been mentioned.


--
Gianna
(in the interests of balance)

You got a reference I could look at.
Google comes up mainly with academic references
The Engineering Business did a lot of testing on Orkney
David B

Global Warming and possible energy crisis
 

Some useful references are in this document.
http://www.wave-energy.net/Library/T...Renewables.pdf
quoting
"The accessible resource (wave power) in deep water was estimated to be
600-700 TWh/year and that for the nearshore at 100-140 TWh/year."

"The accessible tidal stream resource for the most suitable sites in the UK
(including the Channel Islands) is estimated to be approximately 36
TWh/year."

So, the potential harvest is enormous & only limited by technology,
investment and nimbyism. One little bonus of tidal and wave systems I'd also
guess is the possibilty of creating a safe haven for North Sea fish stocks
to regenerate without dredge netting pressure. That should please the
puffin-watchers ;o) .

From wiki : - By 2004, total electricity production stood at 382.7 TWh (up
23.7% compared to 309.4 TWh in 1990), generated from the following sources:
a.. gas - 39.93% (0.05% in 1990)
b.. coal - 33.08% (67.22% in 1990)
c.. nuclear - 19.26% (18.97% in 1990)
d.. renewables - 3.55% (0% in 1990)
e.. hydroelectric - 1.10% (2.55% in 1990)
f.. imports - 1.96% (3.85% in 1990)
g.. oil - 1.12% (6.82% in 1990)
Ross


"David B" wrote in message
...

"Gianna" wrote in message
...
David B wrote:
"newsposter" wrote in message
...
It's probably stupid idealistic naiveity but I've often wondered why
renewables can't eventually produce 100% of the world's energy
requirements.

Enough pump storage systems could surely buffer the demands of the
'Eastenders' broadcast on a cold Boxing day.
Enough tidal power systems would surely provide an entirely
predictable

A company which operates near here - http://www.engb.com/ has spent a
lot of their own and gov money on tidal energy.

They have concluded that it is not a viable source of significant
amounts
of energy


Meanwhile, at Scapa Flow, the reverse applies and wave energy is
considered both viable and highly significant. The possibility of
exporting surplus to the mainland (Europe) has been mentioned.


--
Gianna
(in the interests of balance)

You got a reference I could look at.
Google comes up mainly with academic references
The Engineering Business did a lot of testing on Orkney
David B

Global Warming and possible energy crisis
 

Keith (Southend) wrote:
[...]

What worries me is I can't see an answer, it will only stop when mankind
starts to wipe itself out, or more than likely the planet we have on
loan. I really don't see any viable alternative energy sources that
will seriously feel the gap for our needs and as for the greenhouse
tax's, what a joke, meaningless, it doesn't stop the emissions!

I'm sure someone (or two) will put me straight on some of my thoughts,
tell me i don't know what I'm talking about as far as a fuel crisis is
concerned or say I'm a fascist or something grin, but I just don't see
how "we" are going to stop this roller coaster ride of global warming.


And suddenly, a solution was at hand ...

http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_2033071.html?menu=

.... or not.

--
Gianna

Global Warming and possible energy crisis
 

Gianna wrote:
Keith (Southend) wrote:
[...]

What worries me is I can't see an answer, it will only stop when mankind
starts to wipe itself out, or more than likely the planet we have on
loan. I really don't see any viable alternative energy sources that
will seriously feel the gap for our needs and as for the greenhouse
tax's, what a joke, meaningless, it doesn't stop the emissions!

I'm sure someone (or two) will put me straight on some of my thoughts,
tell me i don't know what I'm talking about as far as a fuel crisis is
concerned or say I'm a fascist or something grin, but I just don't see
how "we" are going to stop this roller coaster ride of global warming.


And suddenly, a solution was at hand ...

http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_2033071.html?menu=

By which time the monitor lizard or three-toed sloth will have evolved
a large brain and will fill the ecological niche left by humans. This
time the new large-brained creatures will not suffer from ego,
selfishness, greed and irrational beliefs and John Lennon's utopian
vision will be realised.

One can only hope.

Martin


... or not.

--
Gianna

Global Warming and possible energy crisis
 

Keith (Southend) wrote:
This may go slightly off topic in some aspects and I'll try to be brief
in my thoughts and concerns, but I don't know whether it's guilt or just
a case of not being able to make sense of it, that I can't get it out
of my head, hence the posting as I present myself on usw's couch for
therapy :-)

It appears to me "we" are saying one thing and doing another in the wide
scheme of things. On one hand we are getting a daily bashing about the
greenhouse emission we are all producing with our cars, homes and planes
etc, yet how ever much we as individuals can reduce our own levels, both
the increase in usage and global spread of industrialization turns the
ratio into a one step forward two steps back scenario. Only this week
the European Countries have been putting pressure on Putin (Russia)
about securing a free market and subsequent supplies of Gas from the
east. Have we now come to the point where the UK/Europe can no longer
support itself with the fossil fuels it requires and will depend more
and more on Countries further afield? Politically this is extremely
worrying and is the makings of wars in the big scheme of things if
things spiral out of control for whatever reason. The Iraq conflict
arguably fits into this scenario.

A big question in my mind is how many years has the planet got left of
fossil fuels (Gas/Oil in particular ?) What ever the figure, surely
assuming we burn the lot, we have then reached the maximum possible
emissions of Co2 output and the scientists nightmare scenario is far
worse than it is now.

What worries me is I can't see an answer, it will only stop when mankind
starts to wipe itself out, or more than likely the planet we have on
loan. I really don't see any viable alternative energy sources that
will seriously feel the gap for our needs and as for the greenhouse
tax's, what a joke, meaningless, it doesn't stop the emissions!

I'm sure someone (or two) will put me straight on some of my thoughts,
tell me i don't know what I'm talking about as far as a fuel crisis is
concerned or say I'm a fascist or something grin, but I just don't see
how "we" are going to stop this roller coaster ride of global warming.


It appears to me, that your flow of thought has only marginally
something to do with global warming problem or the problem the mankind
will face while running out of fossil energy.

I see the core of the problem you try to cope with in terms of global
warming and possible energy crisis in what people accept as motivation
and follow as guidelines for their lives.

I suppose, that maybe to your surprise you won't e.g. find many people
who really care about how long they will stay alive killing themselves
in small and tiny steps by getting satisfaction out of smoking, drinking
alcohol, taking drugs, eating so much, that they run into severe health
problems due to overweight, etc.

As long as there is no general solution to the problems of individuals
as described above in sight there will be also no solution to more
general problems which could be solved only at the level of adapting the
behavior of the individual to the needs of the entire mankind.

In this context I think it is worth to mention a dispute I had decades
ago with a colleague of mine about heavy environment pollution in the
area I have grown up where my own (weak) health suffered very much from
that pollution:
I suggested to stop the pollution by starting to consider all these
people contributing to the heavy pollution as dangerous criminals
belonging into jail by forcing usage of appropriate law. My idea was to
make others aware that polluting the environment is nothing else as
killing people by shortening their life expectation.
To my surprise the attitude of the (very intelligent and well educated)
colleague of mine was:
"It is much better to be happy and spend own life in accordance and
harmony with all the others than to start to force your fellows to
change their behavior making them unhappy not able to continue having
joy out of their lives in a way they like it."
in other words:
"I would better die with all of the others from pollution, than start to
force them by any possible means to stop it."

At least until now, the only way I found helping to cope with what I had
mentioned above without being a case for psychiatric therapy others will
force upon one
(as it happened some years ago to the guy trying to enlighten people not
to put their money into lottery games by demanding five minutes for his
appropriate message on TV ; after making him unable to force others to
fulfill his demand by frightening them with terror, he was forced to
undergo a psychiatric therapy ...)
is to start to see the mankind as it is and not as one would like it to
be. It's true, that this doesn't change anything, but at least it helps
to understand and this way prevents one from going mad giving in return
the time and the opportunity to look for better understanding and this
way maybe even a solution to the core of the problem.

Hope this helps.

Claudio

Global Warming and possible energy crisis
 

I would agree with your colleague to a certain extent. I don't think the
right approach is to tell people what to do, I for one know that if somebody
thinks they instantly know what is best for me given a certain situation
(without knowing or understanding why that situation exists or has come
about), I tend to instantly ignore it. Not necassarily because the advice
does not have some merit, but because not understanding the context and
giving advice in itself to a degree is an act of ignorance. There are people
who are out there literally just trying to survive, they drive polluting
cars to work / shop because they don't have any other choice, they may drink
and take drugs because they are trying to escape a 'reality' where they are
constantly bombarded with messages telling them how they should look, how
they should live, what they should aspire to, what they should believe, what
they should 'be' to be validated by there peers and society. I think the
best approach is to give people the means to discover the facts and
information from good sources, and to share each of our own experiences,
without preaching to others, people can take their own learnings from each
story. For example, the facts about Hurricane Katrina, the authorities of
New Orleans knew one day a storm like it would break the levees and flood
the city, but did not take the risk seriously enough. Sea Temperatures were
quite exceptional (around 33C), possibly exacerbated by global warming, and
it was just one of several storms that reached category 5 status, in what
was a record hurricane season. Then there were the countless stories
documenting the experiences of those who survived the storm, and the images
of the people in a first world city in the 'most powerful' nation in the
world, reduced to having to endure conditions not even seen in most third
world cities. Then there were the opinions of those passing judgment in
society and the media on these people who were just trying to survive in the
city, many of the opinions (regarding the number of murders, their
uncivilised behaviour) was later proven to be unfounded and based on
ignorance and rumour. I think Hurricane Katrina has played no small part in
the wave of interst in environmental issues we are now seeing most tellingly
from the neo-cons. And we have the information revolution to thank for
bringing these messages home even harder.

"Claudio Grondi" wrote in message
...
Keith (Southend) wrote:
This may go slightly off topic in some aspects and I'll try to be brief
in my thoughts and concerns, but I don't know whether it's guilt or just
a case of not being able to make sense of it, that I can't get it out of
my head, hence the posting as I present myself on usw's couch for therapy
:-)

It appears to me "we" are saying one thing and doing another in the wide
scheme of things. On one hand we are getting a daily bashing about the
greenhouse emission we are all producing with our cars, homes and planes
etc, yet how ever much we as individuals can reduce our own levels, both
the increase in usage and global spread of industrialization turns the
ratio into a one step forward two steps back scenario. Only this week the
European Countries have been putting pressure on Putin (Russia) about
securing a free market and subsequent supplies of Gas from the east. Have
we now come to the point where the UK/Europe can no longer support itself
with the fossil fuels it requires and will depend more and more on
Countries further afield? Politically this is extremely worrying and is
the makings of wars in the big scheme of things if things spiral out of
control for whatever reason. The Iraq conflict arguably fits into this
scenario.

A big question in my mind is how many years has the planet gIot left of
fossil fuels (Gas/Oil in particular ?) What ever the figure, surely
assuming we burn the lot, we have then reached the maximum possible
emissions of Co2 output and the scientists nightmare scenario is far
worse than it is now.

What worries me is I can't see an answer, it will only stop when mankind
starts to wipe itself out, or more than likely the planet we have on
loan. I really don't see any viable alternative energy sources that will
seriously feel the gap for our needs and as for the greenhouse tax's,
what a joke, meaningless, it doesn't stop the emissions!

I'm sure someone (or two) will put me straight on some of my thoughts,
tell me i don't know what I'm talking about as far as a fuel crisis is
concerned or say I'm a fascist or something grin, but I just don't see
how "we" are going to stop this roller coaster ride of global warming.


It appears to me, that your flow of thought has only marginally something
to do with global warming problem or the problem the mankind will face
while running out of fossil energy.

I see the core of the problem you try to cope with in terms of global
warming and possible energy crisis in what people accept as motivation and
follow as guidelines for their lives.

I suppose, that maybe to your surprise you won't e.g. find many people who
really care about how long they will stay alive killing themselves in
small and tiny steps by getting satisfaction out of smoking, drinking
alcohol, taking drugs, eating so much, that they run into severe health
problems due to overweight, etc.

As long as there is no general solution to the problems of individuals as
described above in sight there will be also no solution to more general
problems which could be solved only at the level of adapting the behavior
of the individual to the needs of the entire mankind.

In this context I think it is worth to mention a dispute I had decades ago
with a colleague of mine about heavy environment pollution in the area I
have grown up where my own (weak) health suffered very much from that
pollution:
I suggested to stop the pollution by starting to consider all these
people contributing to the heavy pollution as dangerous criminals
belonging into jail by forcing usage of appropriate law. My idea was to
make others aware that polluting the environment is nothing else as
killing people by shortening their life expectation.
To my surprise the attitude of the (very intelligent and well educated)
colleague of mine was:
"It is much better to be happy and spend own life in accordance and
harmony with all the others than to start to force your fellows to change
their behavior making them unhappy not able to continue having joy out of
their lives in a way they like it."
in other words:
"I would better die with all of the others from pollution, than start to
force them by any possible means to stop it."

At least until now, the only way I found helping to cope with what I had
mentioned above without being a case for psychiatric therapy others will
force upon one
(as it happened some years ago to the guy trying to enlighten people not
to put their money into lottery games by demanding five minutes for his
appropriate message on TV ; after making him unable to force others to
fulfill his demand by frightening them with terror, he was forced to
undergo a psychiatric therapy ...)
is to start to see the mankind as it is and not as one would like it to
be. It's true, that this doesn't change anything, but at least it helps to
understand and this way prevents one from going mad giving in return the
time and the opportunity to look for better understanding and this way
maybe even a solution to the core of the problem.

Hope this helps.

Claudio

Global Warming and possible energy crisis
 

"JPG" wrote in message
ups.com...

Gianna wrote:
Keith (Southend) wrote:
[...]

What worries me is I can't see an answer, it will only stop when
mankind
starts to wipe itself out, or more than likely the planet we have on
loan. I really don't see any viable alternative energy sources that
will seriously feel the gap for our needs and as for the greenhouse
tax's, what a joke, meaningless, it doesn't stop the emissions!

I'm sure someone (or two) will put me straight on some of my thoughts,
tell me i don't know what I'm talking about as far as a fuel crisis is
concerned or say I'm a fascist or something grin, but I just don't
see
how "we" are going to stop this roller coaster ride of global warming.


And suddenly, a solution was at hand ...

http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_2033071.html?menu=

By which time the monitor lizard or three-toed sloth will have evolved
a large brain and will fill the ecological niche left by humans. This
time the new large-brained creatures will not suffer from ego,
selfishness, greed and irrational beliefs and John Lennon's utopian
vision will be realised.

One can only hope.

Martin


... or not.

--
Gianna


Hey I liked John Lennon as much as the next man
but......................................
......imagine no possessions? Why he didn't even try.


I have to say this subject of irrational doom really does remind me of
sucking Lemons (not Lennons)

I'm sure someone remarked something like "we've only borrowed the planet"

Okay but it does beg the question of who did we borrow it from, and how long
did they have it. What about, did they do that well. As far as I under
stand it during the last 4.3 billion years, the only thing that has been
constant has been the litany of cataclysmic disasters. Wiping out whole
life forms.

We Witter on about the warming of the planet and the role of evil humans in
that process-well excuse us for trying to survive!
Excuse us for trying to avoid being eaten, of avoiding freezing to death, of
avoiding being riddled with the parasites that plague all other live forms
in their natural state. Maybe we should be excused of trying to stay warm,
trying to not starve..

During the last two hundred years average global life expectancy has risen
from around 30 years to 67, don't forget that's average in the more
developed countries it's even higher: Do you fancy going back to 1800
again?

How about another four hundred years further back?
http://instruct1.cit.cornell.edu/Cou.../Day6/ages.PDF

This is very telling

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_ex...ine_for_humans


Now humans have managed all this, and a major factor was intelligence and
harnessing energy; food and fossil fuels. There was or never has been the
luxury of choice. It only because of the meteoric rise in the human
condition that we now do have the luxury to wring our hands in angst over
the state of the planet, with friends at dinner parties, whilst eating a
high protein, good carbs meal. The trouble is that post world war II we have
become complacent, we've forgotten how tough. how cruel life once was.

Without Humans utilising fossil fuels they would have struggled to survive.
But we have, it's incredible what humans have achieved in the Neolithic
period, and the remarkable accelerated process in the last several hundred
years is nothing short of phenomenal.
The real struggle has to be first finding alternative energy source that
doesn't push capitalism into a major world recession. We are still in a far
better position than at any other time in human history.