Unsustainable Consumption
 

Hi guys

I recently had a interesting discussion with my bro about the unsustainable consumption of the earth's resources. Main culprits to us was the US, followed closely by the european union. Unless a radical move towards enviro friendly fuel production was achieved in the short term, then the consequences will be a major fall out between the EU and US some point in the future over oil distribution and if that doesnt lead to war then we will all be drowned by the melting ice caps a wee bit down the line.

It seems to me that possibly the worst thing that could have happened to upset the equilibrium of the globe has been the demise of the USSR. At least we had some sort of balance back then.

I look forward to your thoughts.

Re: Unsustainable Consumption
 

It's just chicken-little stuff. They've been crying about the oil running out pretty much since it's been discovered. Sure, it'll eventually happen... but not soon.

Point is though, the dangerousness belongs not to the black stuff running out, but to who will try and secure the resevoir long before it.

Ever wondered why Scotland has never really had a real shout at governing itself?(Pseudo puppet Blairites not included)

Seems we have about 100 to 150 years to figure it out. By then, most of the oil will be long gone, the middle east can go back to being irrelevant, and someone will have figured out a completely new energy source.

If we don't come up with a new fuel, war won't begin to describe what comes next. But, 150 years from now is so far off - its impossible to say. I mean look at 150 years ago and double the rate of progress b/w then and now.

Kind of ironic, it seems to me, that as technologically advanced as humankind is, we are still at the mercy of dinosaur squeezins to power everything. :confused:

Newsflash: 150 years is an extremely short amount of time. Just because we personally won't reach it doesn't mean it's infinitely far away.

A lot of folks wring their hands over sustainability, but they usually make the mistake of not considering improved productivity and new innovation over that time period.

There is no way that the agricultural practices of the year 1900 could feed the populations of 2000, for example. Absolutely unsustainable. But on the way to disaster mankind worked out how to apply new technology and practices to farming. In 1900 it took 50% of the population to grow the food for everyone. Now it takes about 1%.

Re: Unsustainable Consumption
 

Yes...while you're looking for a new source of energy, make sure find one that doesn't result in creation of waste heat. This should only require an amendment to the laws of thermodynamics. :-)
Not sure I follow you here. You're saying the Soviets were holding the US back from using more energy? Which "equilibrium of the globe" are you talking about?

Hopefully this will be the case, but you can't depend on this happening. I say the responsibility for fixing this starts with us, right now.

What I am saying is that I could not see the US in Afghanistan and Iraq(sorry for being premature) if the soviet Empire still existed. I see the demise of the soviet union as the most unsettling single event of the 20th century. Firstly, a new ungovernable area has been created ruled by drug barons and mafia, which is unleashing itself upon a region so corrupt politically that should there be a sniff of uranium up for grabs then it has already been sold.
Next the collapse of the USSR has encouraged a dangerous boldness by the US to adopt itself as the champion of the free world, the crusader of righteousness, and saviour of civilisation. In my opinion, it has pounced on a chance to assert itself in strategic positions to meet it's own ends.

I dont see the US challenging the Chinese with military threats when a US 'spy' plane came down in Chinese territory. However if that same plane had come down in Iraq and S.Hussain was holding the aircrew and plane for 'evaluation' then I wonder if the US administration would have reacted difeently. I use this example because the Chinese have been for years punishing their own people who expressed anti-establishment discourse and at the same time have been terrorising the inhabitants of Taiwan at arms length. This is the very regime that Mr.Bush is gunning after. Smacks of double standards to me.

We dont need a 'Star Wars' type Federation governing the world. What we need is a strong UN which can be left to decide on concencus what should be done about real global threats.

Closer to home, we have the English across the Irish Sea who are dumping millions of barrels of toxic discharge into our seas because it suits them. Who gives a damn about a tiny island of paddy spud pickers. Really I could'nt see it happening if Sellafield was located in Tijuana. For one the English goverment are so far up the US administrations backside that there brains co-exist in complete harmony.
Secondly the US would shut it down. Find some excuse and take them out.

My argument is far from eloquent and I have no doubt could be better voiced by a more learned debater, but the fact remains that their is an imbalance of power in the world and the US are exploiting it. It will reach a point some point in the future, where the next most powerful alliance or state will adopt alternative policy on the basis of economic or resourceful needs, which will in turn precede misery.

The problem with most 'sustainable' resources is that they do not produce enough energy to justify their production, ie a solar panel factory coudl not produce enough power from solar panels before they would have to be replaced from solar panels. I think fusion will be the next big one.

Course it does. On the other hand China has perfered economic partner status. Giovernemnts are always hypercritical, perfectly normal.

There's also the dramatic difference between war with Iraq and war with China. We can bully Iraq around much easier than China because we are that much larger.

Strikes me as a non sequitur; you started out talking about sustainable energy and consumption and ended up in Afghanistan and Iraq. I guess if you're part of the "big nasty US is the source of all evil" school, it makes enough sense to pass muster, otherwise I think you need to make some connections there first.

When the Soviet Empire existed, Afghanistan was clearly within their hegemony and Iraq was a client state. To this day the Russians are closet (yes, I do mean "closet" and not "closest") allies of the Baath Iraquis because Iraq still owes them several billion dollars which they're unlikely to collect unless Saddam remains in control. (A large part of that debt was spent on buying weapons from the Soviets....which didn't really perform all that well during the Gulf War.)

By the way, Jag: "Hypocritical" is the word you're reaching for. "Hypercritical" is a word too, but not the one you mean; in fact it is nearly opposite in meaning. Spelling does matter sometimes, and spell check won't always save you.

I wouldn't say the Russians are very secretive of their association with the Iraqis. Its fairly commonly reported; in fact, the US released a statement promising Russia all contracts would be honored if Russia backed the UN resolution. The Soviet Union very much did not back Iraq during its existance - rather, they supported Khomeini's vengeance war against Iraq. Obviously, though, the rules of IR mean that alliances shift.

Also, Afghanistan was the Soviet Union's Vietnam. To say it was part of their sphere of influence is, well, really just wrong. It's not like they took control quickly, like in Eastern Europe. They withdrew unvictorious.

Finally, to characterize valid criticisms of US policy (even if those criticisms are unrelated), as anti-Americanism is little more than an illogical argument.

I donrt understand how it can. What you are saying is that I am branching off at best or rambling at worst.


I do not see where the confusion lies. Afghanistan and Iraq will always be on the agenda at the Moscow symposia. There influence there is obvious.

Yeah, I'll get right on it...maybe tomorrow. :)