We've got falling spare oil production capacity, inconstant electricity from renewables, a gas crisis, and a looming food shortage. What's the most realistic way out of this mess?
End the sanctions on Russia. Actively talk about the reducing consumption and embrace rising interest rates to slow the economy enough to fix supply chains.
Best way to reduce consumption would be to eliminate wind & solar. They are the epitome of energy inefficiency. Use 20-40X more material and 300-800X more land. And end all agrofuels, an incredible waste of precious land & energy resources for absolutely nothing. Insanity. Build more nuclear, especially high temperature reactors, which have the minimal consumption of resources, by far. Also quite inventing wars which destroy vast amounts of infrastructure, waste billions of tons of material and kill millions of people. Has there even been one legitimate war since WW2?
3. Prioritize fuel over renewables until renewables can be practically deployed.
4. Environmentalists must learn to make compromises, such as allow mining to facilitate production of batteries, and allow Natgas pipelines in order to wean countries off more polluting forms of power generation.
Irina, this supply-demand mess is a worldwide problem. And will find it’s own solution via prices, if only the people’s collective will is followed. If not, pain will eventually cause the necessary changes. Currently, the world must suffer a lot more pain. It will be messy.
3) Creating the Covid Plandemic with an engineered bioweapon
4) Enforcing incredibly destructive lockdowns & restrictions ostensibly to protect against their bioweapon, all of which cost more lives as well as ruining the economy and destroying SME's, while funneling vast wealth to the ultra rich
5) Blocking Covid therapeutic treatment protocols which unlike their vaccines are actually extremely effective in avoiding death & hospitalization from their bioweapon
6) Blocking investment in rational energy production i.e. Coal, Gas, Oil & Uranium through their nutty ESG scam sanctions
A lot of people I talk to, and I myself, expect a lot more pain before things begin to get better. And I so wished there could be some quicker optimism.
I see the only thing they're stepping back from is the air travel crisis, for which they're blaming the industry and not a single thing they did during the pandemic.
A little bit of everything - energy supply of all kinds, and demand reduction over realistic periods of time.
OECD, particularly North America, energy demand has to fall. We have to work energy strategies, not emissions strategies (if you can call them that). The focus has to be do provide adequate and affordable energy while realistically mitigating and minimizing environmental impacts. We are currently being driven by the thought that we'll focus on emissions and kid ourselves that we'll have adequate energy. That was obviously an ignorant and misinformed route to start with, but it's starting to become obvious enough that even politicians can see it.
I do believe that shortages and prices will resolve the worst of this, but it will take time. So buckle up.
You can still reduce emissions, in fact far, far more, while increasing energy supply. Instead of investing in energy inefficiency i.e. Wind, Solar, Hydrogen, Agrofuels, Biomass burning, invest in energy efficiency, using CCGT, ultra-supercritical coal, Nuclear, Hydro, hybrid and electric vehicles, methanol fuel. Way back in the 1990s Detroit built a diesel-electric hybrid sedan with 100mpg under a government contract.
There is no realistic way out of this mess. There are too many opposing and conflicting viewpoints on what to do about energy. Ending fossil fuels while expanding renewables is King Kong vs. Godzilla. I'm not sure who wins, how they win, or if they ever win. Ironically, Godzilla dies without King Kong in the same way that renewable energy is not feasible with fossil fuel energy and fossil molecules. Normally, economics should dictate the allocation of capital. But when you throw in "existential threats", economics become secondary. As I say, I don't see a realistic way out of this mess.
Can we include reality and assume reasonableness from the green folks in our thoughts?
That in itself could be my answer. How about we just let the Forrest’s grow and work our little butts off planting more trees. The planet’s big green filter will get everything back in balance, while we move at a sensible pace to cleaner energy production methods, using better technology, as it is developed, rather than windmills and solar panels RIGHT NOW, EVERYWHERE, NO EXCEPTIONS!
Let markets decide how much oil&gas to produce, and how much renewables to produce
All these policies were developed during a high-energy, low-energy cost world. Thanks to oil&gas. Now we are seeing what a low-energy, high-energy cost world looks like. It ain't pretty.
Leave it to free markets the amount of renewables produced will be almost entirely hydro, some geothermal, bits of wind & solar in areas on diesel generation or off-grid homes. They are impractical and always will be. The only path forward long term is nuclear, fusion & fission. But not scams like the $65B boondoggle = ITER.
Beside a rapid expansion of nuclear energy, a big move to methanol and DME could easily have been done. Methanol being an excellent replacement for gasoline and DME for diesel, which are much cleaner burning, more efficient, less expensive and can be made in unlimited quantities from any biomass, including forest overgrowth which just ends up being burned in massive forest fires. Or made from coal, NG including stranded or flared gas, flue gas(i.e. from cement plants), seawater CO2 or carbonaceous waste.
The DOE built a demo IGCC coal power plant that could coproduce methanol for 50 cents/gal. The Luigi Mega-Methanol plants can produce methanol from NG for 6 cents/liter. And the NREL forecasts methanol from biomass large scale production at 50 cents/gal or 13 cents/liter. An optimized methanol spark ignition engine can substitute for a diesel engine at 1.5X torque/liter displacement, 40% more compact, ~10% more efficient with a much wider island of high efficiency than the diesel engine, as well as much lower emissions. And methanol burns at higher efficiency than natural gas in gas turbines. Methanol being the easiest fuel to store, with spills having minimal environmental effect.
This energy crisis and all we here about is more crap about wind, solar, agrofuels and hydrogen. Zip about nuclear, methanol or DME = the real clean substitutes for oil & gas.
Quoting Robert Zubrin:
" I offered to bet up to ten people $10,000 each that I could take my 2007 Chevy Cobalt [EPA 24mpg, 21 city, 29 hwy], which is not a flex-fuel car, and, running it on 100 percent methanol, get at least 24 miles per gallon on the highway. Since methanol averages less than half the price of gasoline - and can readily be made from coal, natural gas, or any kind of biomass without exception - this would demonstrate superior transportation economy from a non-petroleum fuel that is producible from plentiful American resources. Unfortunately, no one took the bet. That fact alone says a lot. Of the 7 billion people on this planet, there are about a million or so who know a great deal about cars. Clearly, not one of them was sufficiently doubtful that it could be done to put his money on the line. Although it left me short a nice chunk of easy cash, the refusal of anyone to accept my challenge should have settled the matter. But some people, while refusing to take the bet, still demanded that I conduct the test anyway. I did, and here are the results."
" First, I ran the car on 100 percent methanol. This required replacing the fuel-pump seal made of Viton, which is not methanol compatible, with one made of Buna-N, which is. The new part cost 41 cents, retail. In order to take proper advantage of methanol's very high octane rating (about 109), I advanced the timing appropriately. This dramatically improved the motor efficiency and allowed the ordinarily sedate sedan to perform with a significantly more sporty spirit. As measured on the dyno, horsepower increased 10 percent. With these modifications complete, I took my Cobalt out for a road test. The result: 24.6 miles per gallon. When I first made the bet, many commentators thought that I would aim for high-efficiency performance with high-octane fuel by increasing the compression ratio of the engine (which is how race-car drivers using methanol have done it for the past half-century). However, with modern cars using electronic fuel injection, this is unnecessary. Instead, the necessary changes to the engine can be made simply by adjusting the Engine Control Unit software. Thus, except for switching the fuel-pump seal as noted above, no physical changes to the car were required "
The Methanol Economy: G. K. Surya Prakash, Loker Hydrocarbon Research Institute, University of Southern California
The convergence of dark vectors extends well beyond those stated.
On the bright side perhaps this will catalyze groundbreaking innovation(s).
In the meantime, all the self collective systems will continue to adjust by grinding down each in its own way.
These is no stopping this now.
The hands that were dealt are going to be played out unless derailed by an act of God. But don't forget the bulk of the population accepted all this every step of the way while the watchers have been warning.
Soon things will start to move so quickly and so devastatingly it will light your hair on fire.
The great majority of people, myself included until relatively recently, don't know where their electricity comes from. It is a very convenient kind of ignorance, which is nobody's fault, really, but it might blow up in a lot of faces.
The understanding of the physical laws does not require math. I would suggest that this be a pre-requisite for making decisions on energy. It is matter of life or death.
All of the issues you listed have their root cause in government's attempting to fix what they perceive is a problem.
First step? Repeal the 16th Amendment.
That will get government OUT of the business of attempting to solve societal issues.
There are far, FAR too many idiots in government - e.g., Anthony Fauci - who truly believe they sit at the right hand of God.
What's happening today has an exact parallel to what happened in the U.S. during its Prohibition Era AND the advent of the US Federal Reserve.
Both were / are government attempts to "solve" a societal issue.
In the case of Prohibition, it was alcohol abuse (e.g., drunken husbands coming home and beating their wives). In the case of the US Federal Reserve, it was economic ups and downs.
Prohibition was a spectacular failure. It brought about the rise of people like Al Capone and of organized crime. Things got so bad, the 18th Amendment to the US Constitution - Prohibition - had to be repealed.
The US Federal Reserve was the root cause of 1929's Great Depression and the 2008/09 subprime mortgage crisis and subsequent recession.
This whole situation will get exponentially worse if we don't get government out of the situation.
Donald Trump was trying to get government out of the way and give power back to the American people where it belongs. Just like in Ottawa (Canada), Washington (D.C.) panicked when they heard him say that and reacted to him like a rabid dog.
So the first step is to get rid of government's source of vast power and wealth, i.e., income taxation.
The next step? Get rid of the gatekeepers like the EPA, Dept. of Educ., HUD, etc.
The next step? Let the American people solve all this. They'll solve it beautifully.
There’s an old saying: “When you find yourself in hole, the first thing to do is stop digging.” All the tall foreheads in the world capitals need to stop making regulations and let the free market address the issues. Central planning never gets capital allocation correct.
I have been asking myself how much deeper they can dig us all in for months and there's still no plausible answer in sight. The enthusiasm for self-destruction is impressive.
I think the next 2-3 years will be REALLY BAD. I am long term optimistic for humanity though. Hopefully by 5 years the world will be placed on a crash course towards nuclear innovation, economically competitive synthetic fuels, wide adoption of GMO crops for higher yields, etc. We won’t have fixed all of the problems by then, but we should be on our way.
Unfortunately the stakeholder capitalist crowd needs to be taught a lesson first and that is going to hurt.
There are 3 things driving mankind, survival, greed and laziness. If you survive long enough you get greedy, when you have enough stuff you get lazy....I am hoping that survival will dominate until this is over... so drill, baby drill.... and that they get some sense about how our world works as of today, not in some utopian future, the step from here to there is not possible in one stride. It'll be a rough ride, but I think it will blow over, hopefully in 2-3 years, I'm too dam old for it to last any longer! If China takes over, then I don't have to worry about it too long..... but I'm an Irish woman living in Texas, so I have a little fight left in me!
It does seem we're about to go into survival mode, yes. That's not too bad, we need it occasionally to remind us we're not all that "civilised" and "developed", after all. But you're right a lot of us are too old for this crap to last longer than a couple of years.
We are in massive population overshoot. And so unfortunately, our Davos/WEF oligarchs will have to seize control and reduce us all to serfs (or Soylent green). Right out of “Brave New World”. It’s just going to have to be the way it is. (Sarcastic, but sadly, actually not really)
I keep thinking the situation right now is a lot more "Brave New World" than "1984" but it's just not that obvious, I guess. And while we're all very loudly critical on the parallels between reality and "1984", the parallels with "Brave New World" don't seem to bother a lot of people and that frightens me badly.
"Maintain humanity under 500,000,000 in perpetual balance with nature."
That's 500 million people, globally.
If you are not familiar with the insane Georgia Guidestone commandments which are literally carved in stone in public, you might want to do an internet search.
Population reduction is a publicly stated goal by WEF and other globalists.
The Green New Deal is one step toward achieving population reduction due to lack of energy.
Add in the coming food shortages this upcoming winter.
Good question, Irina. In some parts of Italy we are experiencing water shortage which has led to rationing. Now just add that to the mix and you'll understand where we are going. My only prayer is that we do not wake one morning and they us tell there is air shortage...lol. Who knows how that will happen?
Just last week I read about the Po not getting enough water from the spring melt because the winter was dry and everyone depending on it for their livelihood suffering the consequences. Fortunately, it wasn't blamed on climate change, it was simply a statement of unpleasant fact. These days, this sort of writing is a miracle. I sympathise with those experience shortages. I live in a drought-prone area.
Forget an air shortage, we should hope they don't start taxing breathing because it emits CO2. :D
Ending the war in a Ukraine must be a priority, but not everyone wants the war to end.
A new global security architecture will emerge with energy adequacy rather than Climate Security at the epicentre. Climate Change and related dangers needs to be fully reassessed on a pragmatic basis with the new focus of environmental protection. Current policies inspired by the Paris agreement lead to nowhere.
When I started working professionally on energy in 1974 in the UK, as a Research Assistant, leading one of the first academic solar energy programmes (mostly devised by myself) and continued over the next 15/20 years under various capacities, climate change was not on the agenda.My drive and that of the few thousand other researchers and entrepreneurs at the time worldwide was a vision of a better and cleaner environment and maximum use of inexhaustible energy supply whic are renewables.
When Climate Change was invented and accountability started being measured in terms of emissions ( which could be counted and charged against anything that moves) this apparently provided the “ethical” basis for the huge and unquestionable support towards renewables.
The rest is history and we both know how political elites took advantage of RES to distort the fundamental questions related to energy security by going to extremes,best represented by EU’s
Energy Taxonomy, which is of course reminiscent of the Middle Ages and Catholic Church’s index of prohibited books ( likewise now we have an index of prohibited types of energy!) Only God can now save us from such way of thinking which if left unchecked will soon lead the world to energy poverty and absolute misery for billions of people.
This is perhaps one of the most unpleasant aspects of the transition push: they took an actually good, noble idea and twisted it into something completely unpalatable. I like your analogy with the Church. Many are now calling the transition push a cult. You cannot ignore the parallels, really. The dogma, the aversion to any form of dissent, it's all there...
One very simple thing to do is stop converting food into ethanol to put into fuel. It costs far more fuel in the first place to produce that maize than it creates as ethanol by a multiple factor.
Suriname, Guyana and Namibia will become giants in filling the gap.
End the sanctions on Russia. Actively talk about the reducing consumption and embrace rising interest rates to slow the economy enough to fix supply chains.
Best way to reduce consumption would be to eliminate wind & solar. They are the epitome of energy inefficiency. Use 20-40X more material and 300-800X more land. And end all agrofuels, an incredible waste of precious land & energy resources for absolutely nothing. Insanity. Build more nuclear, especially high temperature reactors, which have the minimal consumption of resources, by far. Also quite inventing wars which destroy vast amounts of infrastructure, waste billions of tons of material and kill millions of people. Has there even been one legitimate war since WW2?
1. Elect leaders with common sense.
2. Prioritize food over fuel.
3. Prioritize fuel over renewables until renewables can be practically deployed.
4. Environmentalists must learn to make compromises, such as allow mining to facilitate production of batteries, and allow Natgas pipelines in order to wean countries off more polluting forms of power generation.
That’s just my opinion.
That's a very good point (among all your other good points) -- when did compromise become a dirty word?
Irina, this supply-demand mess is a worldwide problem. And will find it’s own solution via prices, if only the people’s collective will is followed. If not, pain will eventually cause the necessary changes. Currently, the world must suffer a lot more pain. It will be messy.
It's only a problem because the Davos gang of Psychopath Parasites have deliberately created the problem by:
1) Suppression of nuclear power
2) Pushing nutty energy scams: wind, solar, hydrogen, agrofuels, ITER, fool cell vehicles
3) Creating the Covid Plandemic with an engineered bioweapon
4) Enforcing incredibly destructive lockdowns & restrictions ostensibly to protect against their bioweapon, all of which cost more lives as well as ruining the economy and destroying SME's, while funneling vast wealth to the ultra rich
5) Blocking Covid therapeutic treatment protocols which unlike their vaccines are actually extremely effective in avoiding death & hospitalization from their bioweapon
6) Blocking investment in rational energy production i.e. Coal, Gas, Oil & Uranium through their nutty ESG scam sanctions
A lot of people I talk to, and I myself, expect a lot more pain before things begin to get better. And I so wished there could be some quicker optimism.
Crisis = opportunity (assuming government(s) step back and allow free markets t work)
Otherwise, good luck to us all - we'll need it.
I see the only thing they're stepping back from is the air travel crisis, for which they're blaming the industry and not a single thing they did during the pandemic.
A little bit of everything - energy supply of all kinds, and demand reduction over realistic periods of time.
OECD, particularly North America, energy demand has to fall. We have to work energy strategies, not emissions strategies (if you can call them that). The focus has to be do provide adequate and affordable energy while realistically mitigating and minimizing environmental impacts. We are currently being driven by the thought that we'll focus on emissions and kid ourselves that we'll have adequate energy. That was obviously an ignorant and misinformed route to start with, but it's starting to become obvious enough that even politicians can see it.
I do believe that shortages and prices will resolve the worst of this, but it will take time. So buckle up.
You can still reduce emissions, in fact far, far more, while increasing energy supply. Instead of investing in energy inefficiency i.e. Wind, Solar, Hydrogen, Agrofuels, Biomass burning, invest in energy efficiency, using CCGT, ultra-supercritical coal, Nuclear, Hydro, hybrid and electric vehicles, methanol fuel. Way back in the 1990s Detroit built a diesel-electric hybrid sedan with 100mpg under a government contract.
There is no realistic way out of this mess. There are too many opposing and conflicting viewpoints on what to do about energy. Ending fossil fuels while expanding renewables is King Kong vs. Godzilla. I'm not sure who wins, how they win, or if they ever win. Ironically, Godzilla dies without King Kong in the same way that renewable energy is not feasible with fossil fuel energy and fossil molecules. Normally, economics should dictate the allocation of capital. But when you throw in "existential threats", economics become secondary. As I say, I don't see a realistic way out of this mess.
Can we include reality and assume reasonableness from the green folks in our thoughts?
That in itself could be my answer. How about we just let the Forrest’s grow and work our little butts off planting more trees. The planet’s big green filter will get everything back in balance, while we move at a sensible pace to cleaner energy production methods, using better technology, as it is developed, rather than windmills and solar panels RIGHT NOW, EVERYWHERE, NO EXCEPTIONS!
I agree, the wind and solar urgency is not helping anyone except the turbine and panel makers.
Expose the scam of ESG
Expose the cult of climatism
Let markets decide how much oil&gas to produce, and how much renewables to produce
All these policies were developed during a high-energy, low-energy cost world. Thanks to oil&gas. Now we are seeing what a low-energy, high-energy cost world looks like. It ain't pretty.
Leave it to free markets the amount of renewables produced will be almost entirely hydro, some geothermal, bits of wind & solar in areas on diesel generation or off-grid homes. They are impractical and always will be. The only path forward long term is nuclear, fusion & fission. But not scams like the $65B boondoggle = ITER.
People are exposing them, repeatedly, but I suppose it takes time for things to begin changing visibly.
Beside a rapid expansion of nuclear energy, a big move to methanol and DME could easily have been done. Methanol being an excellent replacement for gasoline and DME for diesel, which are much cleaner burning, more efficient, less expensive and can be made in unlimited quantities from any biomass, including forest overgrowth which just ends up being burned in massive forest fires. Or made from coal, NG including stranded or flared gas, flue gas(i.e. from cement plants), seawater CO2 or carbonaceous waste.
The DOE built a demo IGCC coal power plant that could coproduce methanol for 50 cents/gal. The Luigi Mega-Methanol plants can produce methanol from NG for 6 cents/liter. And the NREL forecasts methanol from biomass large scale production at 50 cents/gal or 13 cents/liter. An optimized methanol spark ignition engine can substitute for a diesel engine at 1.5X torque/liter displacement, 40% more compact, ~10% more efficient with a much wider island of high efficiency than the diesel engine, as well as much lower emissions. And methanol burns at higher efficiency than natural gas in gas turbines. Methanol being the easiest fuel to store, with spills having minimal environmental effect.
This energy crisis and all we here about is more crap about wind, solar, agrofuels and hydrogen. Zip about nuclear, methanol or DME = the real clean substitutes for oil & gas.
Quoting Robert Zubrin:
" I offered to bet up to ten people $10,000 each that I could take my 2007 Chevy Cobalt [EPA 24mpg, 21 city, 29 hwy], which is not a flex-fuel car, and, running it on 100 percent methanol, get at least 24 miles per gallon on the highway. Since methanol averages less than half the price of gasoline - and can readily be made from coal, natural gas, or any kind of biomass without exception - this would demonstrate superior transportation economy from a non-petroleum fuel that is producible from plentiful American resources. Unfortunately, no one took the bet. That fact alone says a lot. Of the 7 billion people on this planet, there are about a million or so who know a great deal about cars. Clearly, not one of them was sufficiently doubtful that it could be done to put his money on the line. Although it left me short a nice chunk of easy cash, the refusal of anyone to accept my challenge should have settled the matter. But some people, while refusing to take the bet, still demanded that I conduct the test anyway. I did, and here are the results."
" First, I ran the car on 100 percent methanol. This required replacing the fuel-pump seal made of Viton, which is not methanol compatible, with one made of Buna-N, which is. The new part cost 41 cents, retail. In order to take proper advantage of methanol's very high octane rating (about 109), I advanced the timing appropriately. This dramatically improved the motor efficiency and allowed the ordinarily sedate sedan to perform with a significantly more sporty spirit. As measured on the dyno, horsepower increased 10 percent. With these modifications complete, I took my Cobalt out for a road test. The result: 24.6 miles per gallon. When I first made the bet, many commentators thought that I would aim for high-efficiency performance with high-octane fuel by increasing the compression ratio of the engine (which is how race-car drivers using methanol have done it for the past half-century). However, with modern cars using electronic fuel injection, this is unnecessary. Instead, the necessary changes to the engine can be made simply by adjusting the Engine Control Unit software. Thus, except for switching the fuel-pump seal as noted above, no physical changes to the car were required "
The Methanol Economy: G. K. Surya Prakash, Loker Hydrocarbon Research Institute, University of Southern California
https://eu-ems.com/event_images/presentations/Dr.%20Surya%20Prakash%20presentation%202.pdf
The convergence of dark vectors extends well beyond those stated.
On the bright side perhaps this will catalyze groundbreaking innovation(s).
In the meantime, all the self collective systems will continue to adjust by grinding down each in its own way.
These is no stopping this now.
The hands that were dealt are going to be played out unless derailed by an act of God. But don't forget the bulk of the population accepted all this every step of the way while the watchers have been warning.
Soon things will start to move so quickly and so devastatingly it will light your hair on fire.
The great majority of people, myself included until relatively recently, don't know where their electricity comes from. It is a very convenient kind of ignorance, which is nobody's fault, really, but it might blow up in a lot of faces.
If the climate alarmists and green agenda has its way, up the creek without a paddle.
However, if we build the Keystone XL and bring some refineries out of mothballs, maybe we can survive. Europe has to build more LNG facilities.
The understanding of the physical laws does not require math. I would suggest that this be a pre-requisite for making decisions on energy. It is matter of life or death.
The Laws of Thermodynamics.
Very simple.
All of the issues you listed have their root cause in government's attempting to fix what they perceive is a problem.
First step? Repeal the 16th Amendment.
That will get government OUT of the business of attempting to solve societal issues.
There are far, FAR too many idiots in government - e.g., Anthony Fauci - who truly believe they sit at the right hand of God.
What's happening today has an exact parallel to what happened in the U.S. during its Prohibition Era AND the advent of the US Federal Reserve.
Both were / are government attempts to "solve" a societal issue.
In the case of Prohibition, it was alcohol abuse (e.g., drunken husbands coming home and beating their wives). In the case of the US Federal Reserve, it was economic ups and downs.
Prohibition was a spectacular failure. It brought about the rise of people like Al Capone and of organized crime. Things got so bad, the 18th Amendment to the US Constitution - Prohibition - had to be repealed.
The US Federal Reserve was the root cause of 1929's Great Depression and the 2008/09 subprime mortgage crisis and subsequent recession.
This whole situation will get exponentially worse if we don't get government out of the situation.
Donald Trump was trying to get government out of the way and give power back to the American people where it belongs. Just like in Ottawa (Canada), Washington (D.C.) panicked when they heard him say that and reacted to him like a rabid dog.
So the first step is to get rid of government's source of vast power and wealth, i.e., income taxation.
The next step? Get rid of the gatekeepers like the EPA, Dept. of Educ., HUD, etc.
The next step? Let the American people solve all this. They'll solve it beautifully.
Good point -- an actual problem is a very different thing from something perceived as a problem.
There’s an old saying: “When you find yourself in hole, the first thing to do is stop digging.” All the tall foreheads in the world capitals need to stop making regulations and let the free market address the issues. Central planning never gets capital allocation correct.
Tall foreheads- HA! Hadn’t heard that one before
I have been asking myself how much deeper they can dig us all in for months and there's still no plausible answer in sight. The enthusiasm for self-destruction is impressive.
I think the next 2-3 years will be REALLY BAD. I am long term optimistic for humanity though. Hopefully by 5 years the world will be placed on a crash course towards nuclear innovation, economically competitive synthetic fuels, wide adoption of GMO crops for higher yields, etc. We won’t have fixed all of the problems by then, but we should be on our way.
Unfortunately the stakeholder capitalist crowd needs to be taught a lesson first and that is going to hurt.
Yes, if the next two to three years are really bad, within fie we should be on track to normalise life again. Maybe.
There are 3 things driving mankind, survival, greed and laziness. If you survive long enough you get greedy, when you have enough stuff you get lazy....I am hoping that survival will dominate until this is over... so drill, baby drill.... and that they get some sense about how our world works as of today, not in some utopian future, the step from here to there is not possible in one stride. It'll be a rough ride, but I think it will blow over, hopefully in 2-3 years, I'm too dam old for it to last any longer! If China takes over, then I don't have to worry about it too long..... but I'm an Irish woman living in Texas, so I have a little fight left in me!
It does seem we're about to go into survival mode, yes. That's not too bad, we need it occasionally to remind us we're not all that "civilised" and "developed", after all. But you're right a lot of us are too old for this crap to last longer than a couple of years.
We are in massive population overshoot. And so unfortunately, our Davos/WEF oligarchs will have to seize control and reduce us all to serfs (or Soylent green). Right out of “Brave New World”. It’s just going to have to be the way it is. (Sarcastic, but sadly, actually not really)
I keep thinking the situation right now is a lot more "Brave New World" than "1984" but it's just not that obvious, I guess. And while we're all very loudly critical on the parallels between reality and "1984", the parallels with "Brave New World" don't seem to bother a lot of people and that frightens me badly.
Thanks for putting up with my sarcasm.
And yet, in a way, I am serious: The WEF really seems to have a plan; I think that is where we will be in 5 years.
This is a sarcasm-safe space. Besides, the sings we're going into a "Brave New World" future are too many to ignore.
Georgia Guidestones first commandment:
"Maintain humanity under 500,000,000 in perpetual balance with nature."
That's 500 million people, globally.
If you are not familiar with the insane Georgia Guidestone commandments which are literally carved in stone in public, you might want to do an internet search.
Population reduction is a publicly stated goal by WEF and other globalists.
The Green New Deal is one step toward achieving population reduction due to lack of energy.
Add in the coming food shortages this upcoming winter.
Hope you have prepared accordingly.
Good question, Irina. In some parts of Italy we are experiencing water shortage which has led to rationing. Now just add that to the mix and you'll understand where we are going. My only prayer is that we do not wake one morning and they us tell there is air shortage...lol. Who knows how that will happen?
Just last week I read about the Po not getting enough water from the spring melt because the winter was dry and everyone depending on it for their livelihood suffering the consequences. Fortunately, it wasn't blamed on climate change, it was simply a statement of unpleasant fact. These days, this sort of writing is a miracle. I sympathise with those experience shortages. I live in a drought-prone area.
Forget an air shortage, we should hope they don't start taxing breathing because it emits CO2. :D
Ending the war in a Ukraine must be a priority, but not everyone wants the war to end.
A new global security architecture will emerge with energy adequacy rather than Climate Security at the epicentre. Climate Change and related dangers needs to be fully reassessed on a pragmatic basis with the new focus of environmental protection. Current policies inspired by the Paris agreement lead to nowhere.
It would be a miracle -- and a very welcome one -- if we refocus on environmental protection instead of emissions.
When I started working professionally on energy in 1974 in the UK, as a Research Assistant, leading one of the first academic solar energy programmes (mostly devised by myself) and continued over the next 15/20 years under various capacities, climate change was not on the agenda.My drive and that of the few thousand other researchers and entrepreneurs at the time worldwide was a vision of a better and cleaner environment and maximum use of inexhaustible energy supply whic are renewables.
When Climate Change was invented and accountability started being measured in terms of emissions ( which could be counted and charged against anything that moves) this apparently provided the “ethical” basis for the huge and unquestionable support towards renewables.
The rest is history and we both know how political elites took advantage of RES to distort the fundamental questions related to energy security by going to extremes,best represented by EU’s
Energy Taxonomy, which is of course reminiscent of the Middle Ages and Catholic Church’s index of prohibited books ( likewise now we have an index of prohibited types of energy!) Only God can now save us from such way of thinking which if left unchecked will soon lead the world to energy poverty and absolute misery for billions of people.
This is perhaps one of the most unpleasant aspects of the transition push: they took an actually good, noble idea and twisted it into something completely unpalatable. I like your analogy with the Church. Many are now calling the transition push a cult. You cannot ignore the parallels, really. The dogma, the aversion to any form of dissent, it's all there...
One very simple thing to do is stop converting food into ethanol to put into fuel. It costs far more fuel in the first place to produce that maize than it creates as ethanol by a multiple factor.
It is indeed a very simple thing to do.