British Petroleum....had better cough up the cash!

[bush_cheney2004]

So trying to prevent ecological disaster is a special interest! Maybe if all the people living in the year 2050 are a special interest -- they will likely see it differently.

It certainly is in the context of the present climate change framework, where no such "disaster" has been realized. Change does not necessarily equate to disaster, otherwise we would already be "extinct".

In the short term, the "drill baby drill" crowd are seeing their chickens come home to roost since they carelessly disregarded the warnings against more deep water drilling. This was an accident that was bound to happen, and the more deep water drilling rigs, the greater the odds.

And there will be more deep water drilling around the world. Oil spills are neither rare or unexpected. It is not solely an American challenge or responsibility. The USA consumes about 25% of current world production (about 80 million bpd), and is a major producer as well.

Long story short, if this rig was supposed to be among the safest and best operating, then this disaster was something that can be expected when drilling for oil at these depths, and not mere negligence or a freak accident that will not be repeated.

Correct...see above. The technology will be addressed and exploration/drilling will continue.

I'll assume this convoluted statement has something to do with population growth, which wasn't what I was talking about, but is the central problem in environmental issues, since an increasing population demanding higher standards of living will make all other efforts futile.

Not sure what you mean by this, as it would indicate favoring a reduction in human population. That will not happen in the near term, regardless of climate change.

As for that abortion red herring -- thanks in part to the efforts of Republican administrations since Reagan, U.N. sponsored birth control programs have been seriously damaged. Today, more than a quarter of the world's population is under 15, so we can expect another surge in population growth when these children come of age....especially since there is a decline in availability of birth control and legal abortion over the last 30 years. And this is how concern over fetuses, such as expressed recently by our idiot prime minister, adds to the crisis.

Correct...making your extinction premise even more laughable. The abortion reference was intended as specific irony in the face of your hyperbolic climate change prediction, which hasn't killed many humans at all, if any.

[WIP]

It certainly is in the context of the present climate change framework, where no such "disaster" has been realized. Change does not necessarily equate to disaster, otherwise we would already be "extinct".

Sounds like the guy falling from the skyscraper who says:"so far, so good!"

On a serious note, we have to go back 15 million years to find the last time atmospheric CO2 levels are as high as they are today. Even present levels will radically transform the planet into something we have never had to deal with in the history of the human race..let alone since we became dependent on high yield agriculture to feed a population getting close to 7 billion.

"The last time carbon dioxide levels were apparently as high as they are today — and were sustained at those levels — global temperatures were 5 to 10 degrees Fahrenheit higher than they are today, the sea level was approximately 75 to 120 feet higher than today, there was no permanent sea ice cap in the Arctic and very little ice on Antarctica and Greenland," said the paper's lead author, Aradhna Tripati, a UCLA assistant professor in the department of Earth and space sciences and the department of atmospheric and oceanic sciences.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/10/091008152242.htm

And there will be more deep water drilling around the world. Oil spills are neither rare or unexpected. It is not solely an American challenge or responsibility. The USA consumes about 25% of current world production (about 80 million bpd), and is a major producer as well.

The Age of Oil is only about a hundred years old, so we have already had a long history before becoming oil-dependent and we can find alternatives again. Oil is just the path of least resistance, which will be catastrophic for coming generations if we don't make a few sacrifices and have something other than hedonism as our primary value.

Not sure what you mean by this, as it would indicate favoring a reduction in human population. That will not happen in the near term, regardless of climate change.

You mentioned population first, not me; nevertheless population is central to every other environmental, resource and economic issue. And yes, the population has to come down, not just level off, especially since large populations in the Third World are trying to achieve Western standards of living. This requires huge increases in energy and consumption of natural resources, so a gradual decrease in world population is going to be essential for long term survival of the human race.

The present population level is unsustainable for more than a few decades. The best estimates are that if the almost 7 billion people on Earth were consuming energy and resources at the American rate, it would require three planet earths to supply all of the resources. One way or another, the population is going to fall; it can either go easy or go hard, but it's coming down one way or another!

Correct...making your extinction premise even more laughable. The abortion reference was intended as specific irony in the face of your hyperbolic climate change prediction, which hasn't killed many humans at all, if any.

Too bad you don't take the future seriously, because the bad stuff may occur in your lifetime as well.

[bush_cheney2004]

Sounds like the guy falling from the skyscraper who says:"so far, so good!"

Decisions will be made based on economic imperatives, not "sky-is-falling" predictions.

On a serious note, we have to go back 15 million years to find the last time atmospheric CO2 levels are as high as they are today. Even present levels will radically transform the planet into something we have never had to deal with in the history of the human race..let alone since we became dependent on high yield agriculture to feed a population getting close to 7 billion.

Logically then , we already know that humans can survive at this level in the near term, and probably far higher. We also know that humans can survive periods of cooling....we are very adapatble that way.

The Age of Oil is only about a hundred years old, so we have already had a long history before becoming oil-dependent and we can find alternatives again. Oil is just the path of least resistance, which will be catastrophic for coming generations if we don't make a few sacrifices and have something other than hedonism as our primary value.

Again, the choices will be driven by economics, not climate change religion.

You mentioned population first, not me; nevertheless population is central to every other environmental, resource and economic issue. And yes, the population has to come down, not just level off, especially since large populations in the Third World are trying to achieve Western standards of living. This requires huge increases in energy and consumption of natural resources, so a gradual decrease in world population is going to be essential for long term survival of the human race.

Not true, the survival of humans is dependent on several things, not all of which we can control. Population growth will be self limiting and dependent on available resources. This does not equate to "extinction".

The present population level is unsustainable for more than a few decades. The best estimates are that if the almost 7 billion people on Earth were consuming energy and resources at the American rate, it would require three planet earths to supply all of the resources. One way or another, the population is going to fall; it can either go easy or go hard, but it's coming down one way or another!

The Americans consume energy at a lower per capita rate than Canada...your bias is showing!

Too bad you don't take the future seriously, because the bad stuff may occur in your lifetime as well.

There is no good or bad...that is your biased value judgement. Would you rather live in the past and have to survive far more common perils and lower life expectancy, but with the doubtful advantage of "lower CO2" partial pressure in the atmosphere?

[ToadBrother]

Logically then , we already know that humans can survive at this level in the near term, and probably far higher. We also know that humans can survive periods of cooling....we are very adapatble that way.

Homo sapiens is very adaptable. I cannot envision a calamity short of, say, a nearby star going supernova and baking all multicellular life off the planet in an intense stream of X rays and charged particles that would wipe out our species. Civilizations, on the other hand, are much more vulnerable. There are enough examples of ecological or climactic shifts wiping out or at least seriously undermining civilizations in the past to suggest that we are not invincible by any means. Wipe out crop yields for a decade and you won't have much of a civilization left.

[WIP]

Homo sapiens is very adaptable. I cannot envision a calamity short of, say, a nearby star going supernova and baking all multicellular life off the planet in an intense stream of X rays and charged particles that would wipe out our species. Civilizations, on the other hand, are much more vulnerable. There are enough examples of ecological or climactic shifts wiping out or at least seriously undermining civilizations in the past to suggest that we are not invincible by any means. Wipe out crop yields for a decade and you won't have much of a civilization left.

Thanks! Couldn't have said it better.

The question is not whether the human race becomes extinct in a hundred years, it's what sort of life they will have to live. The present course leads to disaster on scales only science fiction writers can deal with. The CIA is expecting resource-based wars and mass migrations from climate change and trying to draw up contingency plans to deal with the results. The Green Revolution depends on present climate trends, and any large shifts are going to cause famines of unimaginable proportions. And the fallout could indeed bring an end to civilization as we know it.

[ToadBrother]

Thanks! Couldn't have said it better.

The question is not whether the human race becomes extinct in a hundred years, it's what sort of life they will have to live. The present course leads to disaster on scales only science fiction writers can deal with. The CIA is expecting resource-based wars and mass migrations from climate change and trying to draw up contingency plans to deal with the results. The Green Revolution depends on present climate trends, and any large shifts are going to cause famines of unimaginable proportions. And the fallout could indeed bring an end to civilization as we know it.

We don't have to go very far back to see how climactic changes can have wide-ranging effects. The series of migrations from the Asian Steppe beginning with the Huns in the 4th century AD and culminating in the extraordinary series of Mongol invasions beginning in the 12th century AD and contemporaneous Turkic invasions, now believed to have stemmed from major climactic shifts on the Steppe, lead to the near destruction and permanent weakening of the western Roman Empire, to the takeover of the Chinese Empire, to the almost complete destruction of much of the Medieval Islamic world, the invasion of India and even Russia, and ultimately the destruction of the Byzantine (Eastern Roman) Empire.

[Oleg Bach]

Your would imagine that the big dogs at BP are intelligent...well they are! Intelligence means the ability to learn and absorb quickly--there is no mention of what is learned...if it is good or bad..I guess wisdom is differnent..It is the ability to decern what is right and what is wrong..the rich and powerful are highly intelligent but they lack wisdom..in other words these wanna be wise guys are not wise at all.

AS I write the BP operatives are running up and down the gulf coast attempting to hand out thousand dollar cheques to fishermen in hope of avoiding a nasty class action suit...just goes to show you how stupid the high archy is at BP..they hold the average hard working food producer and working stiff in loathing and contempt.

Some jerk at head office did some number crunching and figured out that a thousand bucks can buy a hundred six packs and a few bottles of Jack..and that should shut the sea faring twits at bay till the oil sinks and makes the shrimp taste like lighter fluid for the next fifty years..great!

BP is all lawyered up...the weasils are only going to discuss claims that are "legitimate"...I suppose that means those that can be settled at little or no cost to the lunitics at BP.

[bush_cheney2004]

Thanks! Couldn't have said it better.

But clearly you could have said this better:

but the costs of failure to change the present course could mean

extinction

of the human race in a few generations.

The question is not whether the human race becomes extinct in a hundred years, it's what sort of life they will have to live.

Good...now you are thinking more logically.

The present course leads to disaster on scales only science fiction writers can deal with. The CIA is expecting resource-based wars and mass migrations from climate change and trying to draw up contingency plans to deal with the results. The Green Revolution depends on present climate trends, and any large shifts are going to cause famines of unimaginable proportions. And the fallout could indeed bring an end to civilization as we know it.

Quite imaginable from previou "civilizations"...which have come and gone. No big deal.

[ToadBrother]

Quite imaginable from previou "civilizations"...which have come and gone. No big deal.

It certainly was to the people who lived in those civilizations.

[Oleg Bach]

The controllers at the head office at BP are real big on "environmentalism" --- and depopulation and the controlling of seed crops...not going to mention any names...BUT soon as the going gets rough they turn their backs from the real problem created by them .. and they hide..sending out squats of rat lawyers to cover up the trail of the royal hypocrites..where is that tree hugging Prince big ears? I guess you can save the planet but NOT if you have to actually give up a few billion bucks of your own...what a joke.

[atheistrevolution]

their day of JUDGMENT is coming...

The controllers at the head office at BP are real big on "environmentalism" --- and depopulation and the controlling of seed crops...not going to mention any names...BUT soon as the going gets rough they turn their backs from the real problem created by them .. and they hide..sending out squats of rat lawyers to cover up the trail of the royal hypocrites..where is that tree hugging Prince big ears? I guess you can save the planet but NOT if you have to actually give up a few billion bucks of your own...what a joke.

[bush_cheney2004]

It certainly was to the people who lived in those civilizations.

No...in most cases is was a gradual decline and transition to something else imposed by the environment or conquerors. It's not like we haven't done this many times before.

[Oleg Bach]

PEOPLE will relize very soon that those that poked a whole in the side of mother earth are actually enjoying seeing her bleed..It is apparent that those who are responsible for this dastardly deed are laying in their beds jerking off and thinking in the most gleeful way how delightful it is to be so evil...and they actually lay their and think..."I caused such great destruction and no one knows who I am ...this is simply to delicious to bear"...............Yes the game is up..this mayhem is done with intent..YOU can tell this is true because there is no strong reaction from BP what so ever..just a few lawyers murmering the usual crap...Put it this way--we love nature- we love our planet..we love our people..they have NOT the gift of love so they seek to destroy it out of sheer jealousy and hate.

[Bonam]

No...in most cases is was a gradual decline and transition to something else imposed by the environment or conquerors. It's not like we haven't done this many times before.

That's not really true at all. Do you think the lives of the people of Rome didn't change in 476? That the people of Constantinople didn't notice its fall in 1453? When one civilization is destroyed or conquered by another, it is certainly a major change, and leads to at least temporary unpleasantness for the people of the fallen civilization.

Anyway, when it comes to the environment, my point of view is that our advancing technology will win out and let us control the environment to suit our needs, and that advanced human civilization will continue. But your statement that it wouldn't be a big deal if our civilization ceased to exist is plainly wrong.

[bush_cheney2004]

That's not really true at all. Do you think the lives of the people of Rome didn't change in 476? That the people of Constantinople didn't notice its fall in 1453? When one civilization is destroyed or conquered by another, it is certainly a major change, and leads to at least temporary unpleasantness for the people of the fallen civilization.

So what? The very same "civilization" often visited death and destruction on others. Change is constant.

Anyway, when it comes to the environment, my point of view is that our advancing technology will win out and let us control the environment to suit our needs, and that advanced human civilization will continue. But your statement that it wouldn't be a big deal if our civilization ceased to exist is plainly wrong.

How can it be wrong except for your own parochial fondness for our version of "civilization". That's the problem with all these crybabies...they are lamenting the loss of the very "civilization" that is causing their predicted calamitous issue(s). I mean, c'mon, do you really think that mankind's fate pivots on the trials and tribulations of the past 100 minuscule years? Hmmm..let's see...that just happens to the time we have been alive.

[Bonam]

So what? The very same "civilization" often visited death and destruction on others. Change is constant.

Change is constant, sure. But that doesn't mean you have to like the kind of change that happens to include you being killed. I'm not one to just sit back and accept whatever comes, and I don't think you are either. Hence I don't quite understand why you are making this whole inevitability argument.

How can it be wrong except for your own parochial fondness for our version of "civilization".

A person wanting their own civilization not to violently collapse is simple self-interest. You should be able to understand that quite easily. It's not "parochial fondness", rather, it is the desire to survive.

That's the problem with all these crybabies...they are lamenting the loss of the very "civilization" that is causing their predicted calamitous issue(s).

If a civilization is doing something potentially self-destructive, why should that not be pointed out?

I mean, c'mon, do you really think that mankind's fate pivots on the trials and tribulations of the past 100 minuscule years?

I do think that the last 100 years and the next 100 will have a big impact on "mankind's fate". This is the time period where we have developed and will continue to develop and put to use the technologies that can fundamentally reshape what it means to be human, reshape the Earth and its environment, and access resources from beyond Earth. What we do and what we do not do during this time period will indeed be of pivotal importance.

My prediction is that one hundred years from now, it will be obvious what mankind's fate is, either to prosper and expand throughout the galaxy, or to remain forever trapped in a limited and fragile civilization here on Earth.

Hmmm..let's see...that just happens to the time we have been alive.

Indeed, it is an exciting time to be alive.

[bush_cheney2004]

Change is constant, sure. But that doesn't mean you have to like the kind of change that happens to include you being killed. I'm not one to just sit back and accept whatever comes, and I don't think you are either. Hence I don't quite understand why you are making this whole inevitability argument.

Because I have a much longer time horizon. There are still humans living as they have for thousands of years in rain forests, untouched by HDTV, believe it or not.

A person wanting their own civilization not to violently collapse is simple self-interest. You should be able to understand that quite easily. It's not "parochial fondness", rather, it is the desire to survive.

There is no guarantee you will survive even in this "civilization". That's why I think probability and statistics should be mandatory in high school. It helps with objectivity.

If a civilization is doing something potentially self-destructive, why should that not be pointed out?

Because "self-detruction" is a choice made by collective decisions and behaviours. People still smoke cigarettes last time I checked.

I do think that the last 100 years and the next 100 will have a big impact on "mankind's fate". This is the time period where we have developed and will continue to develop and put to use the technologies that can fundamentally reshape what it means to be human, reshape the Earth and its environment, and access resources from beyond Earth. What we do and what we do not do during this time period will indeed be of pivotal importance.

Nah...there were far more important advancements made long ago. See "2001: A Space Odyssey"

My prediction is that one hundred years from now, it will be obvious what mankind's fate is, either to prosper and expand throughout the galaxy, or to remain forever trapped in a limited and fragile civilization here on Earth.

And I predict we will only have invented easier ways to get porn.

Indeed, it is an exciting time to be alive.

It was equally "exciting" for those long dead.

Edited May 6, 2010 by bush_cheney2004

[Bonam]

Because I have a much longer time horizon. There are still humans living as they have for thousands of years in rain forests, untouched by HDTV, believe it or not.

Of course there are. Your point?

There is no guarantee you will survive even in this "civilization". That's why I think probability and statistics should be mandatory in high school. It helps with objectivity.

There is no guarantee but there is a high probability of surviving to a ripe old age. In a sudden upheaval that causes the fall of one civilization and its replacement by another, that probability generally would decrease dramatically. Oh, and probability and statistics are taught in high school.

Because "self-detruction" is a choice made by collective decisions and behaviours. People still smoke cigarettes last time I checked.

Yup, they do. And they are pretty stupid for doing so. But, long as they do it on their own, it is their own choice and they are harming no one else. But when certain activities affect everyone, not just oneself, it becomes a whole different issue.

Nah...there were far more important advancements made long ago. See "2001: A Space Odyssey"

You mean the opening chapter where the dude first has the idea of using a rock as a weapon, and envisions himself having a secure food supply and getting fat and powerful? I read it not too long ago. Such a leap in thinking is indeed an important advance, but the advances we are making now can have a far greater impact. Fusion energy, space travel, genetic engineering and biotechnology, neural science, nanotechnology, artificial intelligence, these all hold the promise of unrecognizably altering our civilization.

And I predict we will only have invented easier ways to get porn.

Certainly. Porn is usually at the forefront of technological advances. Within 20 or 30 years I'm sure we'll have direct brain interfaces that let you fully and interactively experience any sexual encounter you might want. Such technological advance doesn't happen in a vacuum though. Not only porn advances, all these new technologies will be applied to other things as well.

[Oleg Bach]

Porn is for incarcerated people..If you need porn then it means that you are in a cage with no real access to what is natuarlly needed..now getting back to that 100 ton cement milk carton that they are going to drop on the oil leak..good luck...even if it works it is to late...Like I said before ...If these oil companies really cared about the world and the people the reaction to the mistake would have been rapid..

These people who thrive on controling nature and humanity are really not very good at what they do..FIRST of all they hold consumers in contempt like animals and as far as nature..they don't know what it is..and don't care..I just wish they would get off my planet.

[Bonam]

Porn is for incarcerated people..If you need porn then it means that you are in a cage with no real access to what is natuarlly needed

You don't have to be in a cage to not have "real access" to what is "naturally needed". That's just how life is for a lot of people these days. Porn probably keeps a lot of dudes sane.

[bloodyminded]

You don't have to be in a cage to not have "real access" to what is "naturally needed". That's just how life is for a lot of people these days. Porn probably keeps a lot of dudes sane.

True. I'm not a pornhound myself (I don't say this defensively, nor with implied judgement on others...to each his own); but I would bet that many of those with the most active sex lives still indulge in pornography....

[WIP]

How many BTUs do you use each year? What will you give up to end the hydrocarbon economy?

I'm doing my part....improved insulation, replaced windows, put in a new furnace etc. We only eat meat once a week for health reasons, but that also reduces carbon footprint.

About ten years ago, I moved from the suburbs to be closer to work...although that was more for economic and time management reasons than the environment. The 45 mile daily commute was costing a fortune in gas, repairs, not to mention needing a new car every four of five years. Plus the commute was getting too long to be worth the trouble...especially in the winter! And I rarely drive to work now, since I only have to travel about 3.5 miles. I usually run with a backpack on most days, ride my bike when I don't feel up to running...and again, that's mostly for exercise, but it still reduces my carbon footprint nevertheless. And I don't let my son take the car unless he has to travel more than two miles and can't get a bus back home. If we don't end the hydrocarbon economy, we can still do a lot to reduce the upward spiral in coal,gas and oil consumption because of health and economic reasons.

[GostHacked]

You don't have to be in a cage to not have "real access" to what is "naturally needed". That's just how life is for a lot of people these days. Porn probably keeps a lot of dudes sane.

When I am dating it seems like my porn consumption increases.

[WIP]

Logically then , we already know that humans can survive at this level in the near term, and probably far higher. We also know that humans can survive periods of cooling....we are very adapatble that way.

We have no way of knowing how many people, if any, will be able to adapt to planetary conditions that haven't been seen for 15 million years. That was long before there were any humans walking the Earth, and it should be noted that modern humans almost became extinct 70,000 years ago, likely because of a supervolcanic eruption in one of the Indonesian islands. Genomic research has revealed that the scarcity of fossils from that period is due to a bottleneck in the population when there were as few as 2000 cro magnons left alive -- dangerously close to dwindling into extinction as happened to the Neanderthals. So don't take human survival for granted; we came close to dying out at least once in prehistoric times, so it can happen again.

Not true, the survival of humans is dependent on several things, not all of which we can control. Population growth will be self limiting and dependent on available resources. This does not equate to "extinction".

Naturally available resources eventually determine how large a population can grow and what's available for it to use, but our economic system is presently set up with the expectation of continual growth, add that to the social conservative demand for large families, and it's not a stretch to say that we may be in the situation that the inhabitants of Easter Island were before the arrival of James Cook. Their society grew and flourished, and kept on growing even after they cut down all of the trees on the island and degraded the land that they were trying to grow food on. The last survivors ended up as cannibals. The entire planet is finite, so we are living on one big Easter Island. I would rather believe that future generations can put a halt to the demands for growth than end up with the last survivors eating each other!

The Americans consume energy at a lower per capita rate than Canada...your bias is showing!

I know! Part of the reason may be due to the fact that Canada is less densely populated; I'm not going to blame people living in rural areas for the amount of driving they do; I had to do the same thing when I was living in an isolated suburb out in the middle of nowhere. But, the primary reason why Canada's carbon footprint is getting bigger has a lot to do with the oil sands developments in Alberta...the other source of oil besides deep water drilling that believers in the Oil Economy are turning to. The last I heard, the oil sands projects were consuming 40% of Canada's annual usage of natural gas, for the purpose of extracting oil from tar sands. But since we have an oil-company backed government leading this country, there are few options to turn things around before a change in government. And, considering the power of the oil companies to buy the politicians they need, it will be as difficult to put a halt to tar sands up here as it is to stop deep water drilling in the U.S.

There is no good or bad...that is your biased value judgement. Would you rather live in the past and have to survive far more common perils and lower life expectancy, but with the doubtful advantage of "lower CO2" partial pressure in the atmosphere?

The vast majority of the world's population is already suffering a degradation in the quality of life. Food and water shortages, disease and famine are growing because of the increase in extreme weather that is indirectly caused by man-made forcing of the climate. More energy in the planet's weather systems means more extremes, which is not conducive for modern agriculture that billions of people are dependent on.

[bush_cheney2004]

.....If we don't end the hydrocarbon economy, we can still do a lot to reduce the upward spiral in coal,gas and oil consumption because of health and economic reasons.

Doing with less is not the same as doing without. Even if we dismiss the added consumption by "developing" countries, there is a standard of living below which you will not go. This includes transportation, manufacturing, man-made materials, HVAC, lighting, food preparation, services, media production, etc. Even so called "green technologies" only mitigate the impact of the hydrocarbon economy, and in some cases introduce their own negative trade-offs.