I can offer to Google Company solutions for Global warming, peak oil production etc. so simple that every idiots can agreed with them.
Michael Ioffe
Michael Ioffe, Chicago, USA
This id for paal myrtvedt, bergen, norway
Paal, you, and your entire country are weird, so this will be hard for you to understand.
The US, and other countries that behave as it does, suffers from a bizarre optimism, totally unsupported by human history, which does not allow it to believe that anything really *bad* can happen to it.
This is probably the result of: 1) the relative lack of drama in the lives of the majority alive now in the wealthy nations, especially the US; 2) the ingrained biologic proclivity to not react until the tiger is jumping at one's throat.
Norway is out of step, in that it seems to believe in planning ahead to stave off disaster, at least with respect to oil management. There's very little chance that the US, for example, will attempt to divert a future disaster because it (most of the leaders and people) seriously believes that god/nature won't let anything really bad happen to it.
emmy, Austin, TX USA
Unfortuantely the world population is certainly not reducing. Although in some in some developed countries it is levelling off, sub-Sarah Africa, the Middle East and India all have populations which are sky rocketing upwards in some cases doubling every 20 years or so e.g.Uganda. We are well on course for 10-12 billion in the near future.
At the same time Asian economies are rapidly catching up as is thier desire for the Western materialistic and energy hungry lifestyle which they are determined to achieve.
So both the world population and energy and raw materials usage per head of population is increasing rapidly. We are about to get ourselves caught between these two vice like jaws. There simply are not the available resources on the planet.
The future is certainly going to be interesting although I feel a very bumpy ride lie ahead of human kind.
Thomas Crabb, Cardigan, UK
I would not worry too much about the overpopulation if i were you, The only thing that can be absoloutley certain when talking about planet Earth is that our planet always seems to have a way of addressing any problem that threatens to destabilise it.
This used to be easy for people to understand but nowadays we seem to have got far to clever to grasp simple facts, there is a huge and growing level of arrogance in the world today and a vast feeling of superiority from all sides of the fence so much so that the believe than man can not only change the world but also save it. From the idiots who spend their lives trying to save whales to the idiots who think we can stop global warming by walking to work.
The Earth will address any problem caused by overpopulation and dwindling national resources by erasing mankind from the planet. The Earth has been here for billions od years before us and will be here billions of years after we have gone. I would get used to that idea.
Gary, Brisbane, QLD
"Oil ruled the 20th century; the shortage of oil will rule the 21st"
- William Rees-Mogg July 16th 2007.
This quote should become a classic. Keep it up your sleeve.
Allan, Sydney, Australia
I agree that world population is the key issue and has to be reduced. The world will adjust but there will be a change in the world order, governments will fall, the only way oil consumption will drop is with a severe global recession and that is probably what will happen. Maybe a severe recession will cause fertility to drop as people will be reluctant to bring children into such a dim world, more or less what happened in soviet russia. It seem that democratic governments are unable to deal with such problems because the solutions are unpalatable for their electorate, therefore i think democracy itself is in danger
John Bennett, Fermoy, Ireland
Patrick Docherty moves this argument on- but not to its logical conclusion. But he is definitely right that its the problem (perhaps better to use the word "cause")that needs addresing The population is certainly a cause and unfortunately energy consumption is also a cause of our current problem- not a symptom. But what fundamentally needs adressing is humanity's exceeding the carrying capacity of the earth.
Even if population was reduced but each individual was exceeding their environment's carrying capacity- there would still be a problem- albeit a less critical one
PHIL FOGGITT, HONITON, DEVON
PHIL FOGGITT, Honiton, Devon, UK
"Canada's tar sands contain more oil than Saudi Arabia. They are currently uneconomic to exploit." The trouble is that it will soon take more energy to get it out than you get out of it. So it is not economic in energy terms. It has an Energy Return On Energy Invested (EROEI) of less than one. It doesn't matter what the oil in the ground is worth if it takes more energy to get it out than it holds.
The Centre for Alternative Technology in Wales and its Graduate School of the Environment have recently presented to MPs an Alternative Energy Strategy for a Zero Carbon Britain within twenty years. This is a very well researched document and only uses current proven technology. Read it at www.zerocarbonbritain.com.
Ken Neal, Newbury, Berkshire
We keep talking about symptoms as if they are problems. Pointing out the energy crunch as a problem is distracting everyone from dealing with the real problem. The real problem is overpopulation. This is well known, but no one deals with it because it is politically difficult, it is much easier to talk about an energy problem or water problem. We should restrict ourselves to using the term "problem" to overpopulation - the overpopulation problem - and force ourselves to use the term "symptom" for the symptoms - the symptom of an energy shortage, the symptom of a water shortage, the symptom of a food shortage. The extra words to describe the symptom force the correct question - what is the problem? We need writers such as William Rees-Mogg and Al Gore to stop distracting our limited attention span from the problem of overpopulation with talk about oil and global warming and instead distinguish between the problem and the symptoms. After all you cannot solve a symptom only a problem.
Patrick Docherty, Sedgebrook,
Some posts talk about limiting offspring to 2, however if you look back 100 years many families living on farms had 10-12 kids. They did this to help out with running the farm. SO if we end up living in a post-oil world, won't most of us resort back to larger families for farming?
Shawn, Raleigh, USA / North Carolina
In terms of pollution there is still coal available for at least 100 years and it's far much harmful in terms of CO2 emissions than oil. Global Warming trend is still hot, buy it today !
Fred, London, England
About fifty years ago the oceans were described as a limitless resource of food and nuclear energy a limitless supply of power for the future.
Before that, in 1934, Catherine Bauer wrote in 'Modern Housing'; 'The nineteenth century was a mining age. 'Exploit and get out' was its slogan ..... But mining by its very definition, is not a process which can be continued forever. Presently the end of the vein is in sight; the last frontier reached....'
Well, the exploitation continued. The next age will have to be one of preserving and creating not merely using. There is no choice nor will the planet support its growing population. When we talk of demand that is what we mean - industry and commerce are people.
When industry and commerce talk of proiritising or optimising, what has that meant? What have governments meant? What do we mean and what are our objectives?
These are the obdurate questions and they existed when the age of oil began, when its end was already in sight.
Wigglesworth, Gachnang,
Maybe, just maybe, there is a tiny chance in this catastrophe to recover a saner, more human and more humane relationship with nature, each other and even ourselves. After all the oil century, the 20th, wasnt exactly sweetness and light.
julian, oxford, uk
stone age
bronze age
iron age
oil age
sewer age, time to clean up our act
willihudso, retfoed, england
I've done some research on this pertaining to a book and while the degrees of pessimism vary widely there's not a lot, even taking into account nuclear power, on the optimistic side.
I see us surviving but it will tear the fabric of society apart because the cost of transportation of goods is almost entirely borne by oil which means the decentralization of production that is the hallmark of open trade will become much more expensive.
Rome may have been built by the sword but it was maintained by roadways.
Those who oppose globalization may find their wishes granted in ways they had not forseen. In the UK you can think about greenhouses and microbreweries I suppose . But it is possible to solve if the number of regional conflicts can be minimized.
glenn schaefer, holbrook , USA
countries like the uk and australia will have to build more nuclear power stations and construct oil from coal plants like those developed by sasol (south africa).
the large coal reserves should buy some time to develop alternative energy although a lot of investment will be needed to re-open uk mines.
Steam trains could be re-introduced using double boilers and clean coal technology.
steve frank, Perth, Western Australia
This is only part of the issue. Before the industrial revolution when life was sustainable the world's population was about 600 million. Industrialisation (made possible because of the presence of fossil fuels), has provided the means for mechanised agriculture, fertilisers etc. to feed an ever growing human population (now about 6000 million). If mechanised farming had not happened then population growth would not have happened.
When the oil runs out, farming will, by and large, have to return to pre-industrial methods. Similarly, food distribution over long distances will no longer be possible. Civilisation will return to pre-industrialisation tempo. If we had politicians that could face these facts human civilisation would have a fighting chance. But we don't have politicians with backbone. Even now, large numbers of people live barely having enough to survive. But that will look like Buckingham Palace tea party compared to what is in store for the human race.
RichardCr, Baden, Switzerland
"Past forecasts of oil depletion have often proved wrong, and the present forecasts are uncertain."
True, but this argument is at least as applicable to those who foresee a late peak or - bizarrely - no peak; Hubbert's predictions were universally derided and industry forecasts around the world almost always exceed reality.
Daniel, London,
It's long been apparent that it is the denuding of resources and not pollution that is THE big issue.
It's also obvious that the law of supply and demand will radically change consumption patterns.
The current obsession with 'global warming' and tackling CO2 emissions is therefore idiotic.
Nothing that we do politically will stem the rapid depletion of carbon fuel resources, so the prospective impact of CO2 omissions will be the same regardless of scenario.
The problem if we don't develop nuclear fusion is how we manage obligatory human population reductions.
Even if we do develop nuclear fusion, several other ceilings on carrying capacity will be hit so we will still be faced with having no option but to manage global population reduction.
Result: very big wars.
Population is and always has been the ultimate problem, which underlies the issue of resources.
steve moxon, sheffield,
Google "MYT Engine" for one option. Why are inventions like this not being touted if crisis is on the horizon? There are many alternatives to oil power and have been for years but they just don't seem to be exploited as they should.
We have known for decades that oil supplies will deplete and pollution from fossil fuels is choking our atmosphere. But still the drive for profit and power pushes any other issues to the background. Look at the Times article on the impact of corn supplies by ethanol. We will sway from one crisis to the next based on 'oil' of one form or another.
We have seen in our lifetime wars started over access to oil and blamed on religious extremists. We are being led by greedy individuals lining their pockets at our expense. They always have but this is now on a global scale. Is this what we really want our children to inherit?
Ian, London, UK
About time someone from a respectable media outlet had the courage to do a story that begins the tell the truth.
jeremiah, springfield, USA / MO
The world runs on a hydrocarbon based economy
and it seems that no one is really doing anything to change that. There are perilous times ahead of economic upheavel and political instability as people fight over diminishing supplies
Bruce L. Northwood, Washington, D.C., USA
Oil and gas are much more than just electricity. Both are key to our food production and distribution system. Oil is key to the transport system, which runs (more than 90% on liquid fuels). There is NO QUICK FIX that will allow us to replace what we currently get from oil.
The next decades will be very difficult: high unemployement and inflation; social strife; there's a lot more scope for a global war. The divisions between rich and poor will grow further.
Although there's nothing we can do as ordinary individuals to influence the bigger picture, on an individual level we can do much to prepare for the coming energy descent.
1 get out of debt
2 do your own research - find out why fossil fuels matter, that they don't 'run out', they peak, then decline
3 accept the reality rather than looking around for inplausible fixes
4 reduce your energy use (transport, electricity, gas, FOOD)
5 learn new skills - grow food if you can, look at your skill set
Adam, London, UK
I agree I agree I 've been teaching this point for a few years now last time in Saudi. There one of my students whose father worked in the oil biz had told her there were no worries but I told her people have not been factoring India and China's vast populations growth (India morethan china)
The demography is such that these aspirant populations - who do want to have a higher livng standard and better material wealth are going to make demands far outstrippong the rest of the more developed world.
Janet, Kuwait,
First, we have to arrest and reverse the explosion in our numbers: if we don't, nature or human nature - global warming or global war - will do it for us, even more nastily.
Then, we must achieve fusion power: nothing else matches the scale of the approaching problem. The most promising approach is helium3/deuterium - only the closest He3 is the moon's regolith (surface layers) - which in turn necessitates an economic bulk Moon/Earth transport system. Incredibly but truly, this may be achieveable, using already-existing elements related to the Space Elevator concept.
Noel Falconer, COUIZA, France
It's still amazing though that, even though this is a story in national newspaper, the issue of peak oil is never the top story of any leading news broadcaster. The BBC's leading article of today, for example, is that our bins are going to be collected every fortnight. Peak oil is still being treated almost like a wacky conspiracy theory, so if the crunch is coming soon (or here already) and it's still not a top story with our news media, what hope do we have?
Chris, London, UK
Very honest and straight analisys. Our President Chávez, who recently visited Russia, Bielorussia and Iran, must probably did talk about the situation described above, in the article, with the leaders of those friendly countries. Venezuela that has being, historically, a "reliable supplier", particularly, to the United States of America, is ready to reach agreements with world oil companies but in the frame and respect of our venezuelan´s laws and respect for our voted political system. We really know our responsabilties with the rest of the countries, particularly, with our neighbours.
Miguel Angel del Pozo, Caracas, Venezuela
This will make faster the popularizing uses of oil substitutes. More the shortages better inventions for oil substitutes.
Eventually, the losers will be current oil producers. This process has happened earlier and will happen faster in future!
Regards,
Krishna R. Kumar, Udupi, India
good, maybe now we can take the billions spent in defence
and put it into education, research, science and exploration
where we have a greater chance of "discoverin" oil
John, Liverpool,
What a great article. Well, I'm glad my old diesel VW Golf does 60mpg when driven carefully, and I've got a bicycle for shorter journeys. Hopefully oil will last just long enough for the government to bring on-line the hundreds of nuclear reactors we will need to recharge the tens of millions of electric cars, vans, trucks and buses in which we will no-doubt all be driving around the UK in 20 years time. If we haven't started building these power stations, I suppose we could buy ourselves a few extra years by invading some middle-eastern country and attempting to steal all their oil - or has that been tried?
Michael, Brighton, England
Funny that there is no mention of climate change or
dependency on a politically unstable region. The transition will be painful, but if it does reduce greenhouse gases (NOT a govt. invention, Dick of Aberdeenshire) and make the EU and US more energy autonomous, that can't be all bad. In so many regions, oil has been a curse, preventing the development of human resouces.
Pablo, Edinburgh, Scotland
I can offer to Google Company solutions for Global warming, peak oil production etc. so simple that every idiots can agreed with them.
Michael Ioffe
Michael Ioffe, Chicago, USA
This id for paal myrtvedt, bergen, norway
Paal, you, and your entire country are weird, so this will be hard for you to understand.
The US, and other countries that behave as it does, suffers from a bizarre optimism, totally unsupported by human history, which does not allow it to believe that anything really *bad* can happen to it.
This is probably the result of: 1) the relative lack of drama in the lives of the majority alive now in the wealthy nations, especially the US; 2) the ingrained biologic proclivity to not react until the tiger is jumping at one's throat.
Norway is out of step, in that it seems to believe in planning ahead to stave off disaster, at least with respect to oil management. There's very little chance that the US, for example, will attempt to divert a future disaster because it (most of the leaders and people) seriously believes that god/nature won't let anything really bad happen to it.
emmy, Austin, TX USA
Unfortuantely the world population is certainly not reducing. Although in some in some developed countries it is levelling off, sub-Sarah Africa, the Middle East and India all have populations which are sky rocketing upwards in some cases doubling every 20 years or so e.g.Uganda. We are well on course for 10-12 billion in the near future.
At the same time Asian economies are rapidly catching up as is thier desire for the Western materialistic and energy hungry lifestyle which they are determined to achieve.
So both the world population and energy and raw materials usage per head of population is increasing rapidly. We are about to get ourselves caught between these two vice like jaws. There simply are not the available resources on the planet.
The future is certainly going to be interesting although I feel a very bumpy ride lie ahead of human kind.
Thomas Crabb, Cardigan, UK
I would not worry too much about the overpopulation if i were you, The only thing that can be absoloutley certain when talking about planet Earth is that our planet always seems to have a way of addressing any problem that threatens to destabilise it.
This used to be easy for people to understand but nowadays we seem to have got far to clever to grasp simple facts, there is a huge and growing level of arrogance in the world today and a vast feeling of superiority from all sides of the fence so much so that the believe than man can not only change the world but also save it. From the idiots who spend their lives trying to save whales to the idiots who think we can stop global warming by walking to work.
The Earth will address any problem caused by overpopulation and dwindling national resources by erasing mankind from the planet. The Earth has been here for billions od years before us and will be here billions of years after we have gone. I would get used to that idea.
Gary, Brisbane, QLD
"Oil ruled the 20th century; the shortage of oil will rule the 21st"
- William Rees-Mogg July 16th 2007.
This quote should become a classic. Keep it up your sleeve.
Allan, Sydney, Australia
I agree that world population is the key issue and has to be reduced. The world will adjust but there will be a change in the world order, governments will fall, the only way oil consumption will drop is with a severe global recession and that is probably what will happen. Maybe a severe recession will cause fertility to drop as people will be reluctant to bring children into such a dim world, more or less what happened in soviet russia. It seem that democratic governments are unable to deal with such problems because the solutions are unpalatable for their electorate, therefore i think democracy itself is in danger
John Bennett, Fermoy, Ireland
Patrick Docherty moves this argument on- but not to its logical conclusion. But he is definitely right that its the problem (perhaps better to use the word "cause")that needs addresing The population is certainly a cause and unfortunately energy consumption is also a cause of our current problem- not a symptom. But what fundamentally needs adressing is humanity's exceeding the carrying capacity of the earth.
Even if population was reduced but each individual was exceeding their environment's carrying capacity- there would still be a problem- albeit a less critical one
PHIL FOGGITT, HONITON, DEVON
PHIL FOGGITT, Honiton, Devon, UK
"Canada's tar sands contain more oil than Saudi Arabia. They are currently uneconomic to exploit." The trouble is that it will soon take more energy to get it out than you get out of it. So it is not economic in energy terms. It has an Energy Return On Energy Invested (EROEI) of less than one. It doesn't matter what the oil in the ground is worth if it takes more energy to get it out than it holds.
The Centre for Alternative Technology in Wales and its Graduate School of the Environment have recently presented to MPs an Alternative Energy Strategy for a Zero Carbon Britain within twenty years. This is a very well researched document and only uses current proven technology. Read it at www.zerocarbonbritain.com.
Ken Neal, Newbury, Berkshire
We keep talking about symptoms as if they are problems. Pointing out the energy crunch as a problem is distracting everyone from dealing with the real problem. The real problem is overpopulation. This is well known, but no one deals with it because it is politically difficult, it is much easier to talk about an energy problem or water problem. We should restrict ourselves to using the term "problem" to overpopulation - the overpopulation problem - and force ourselves to use the term "symptom" for the symptoms - the symptom of an energy shortage, the symptom of a water shortage, the symptom of a food shortage. The extra words to describe the symptom force the correct question - what is the problem? We need writers such as William Rees-Mogg and Al Gore to stop distracting our limited attention span from the problem of overpopulation with talk about oil and global warming and instead distinguish between the problem and the symptoms. After all you cannot solve a symptom only a problem.
Patrick Docherty, Sedgebrook,
Some posts talk about limiting offspring to 2, however if you look back 100 years many families living on farms had 10-12 kids. They did this to help out with running the farm. SO if we end up living in a post-oil world, won't most of us resort back to larger families for farming?
Shawn, Raleigh, USA / North Carolina
In terms of pollution there is still coal available for at least 100 years and it's far much harmful in terms of CO2 emissions than oil. Global Warming trend is still hot, buy it today !
Fred, London, England
About fifty years ago the oceans were described as a limitless resource of food and nuclear energy a limitless supply of power for the future.
Before that, in 1934, Catherine Bauer wrote in 'Modern Housing'; 'The nineteenth century was a mining age. 'Exploit and get out' was its slogan ..... But mining by its very definition, is not a process which can be continued forever. Presently the end of the vein is in sight; the last frontier reached....'
Well, the exploitation continued. The next age will have to be one of preserving and creating not merely using. There is no choice nor will the planet support its growing population. When we talk of demand that is what we mean - industry and commerce are people.
When industry and commerce talk of proiritising or optimising, what has that meant? What have governments meant? What do we mean and what are our objectives?
These are the obdurate questions and they existed when the age of oil began, when its end was already in sight.
Wigglesworth, Gachnang,
Maybe, just maybe, there is a tiny chance in this catastrophe to recover a saner, more human and more humane relationship with nature, each other and even ourselves. After all the oil century, the 20th, wasnt exactly sweetness and light.
julian, oxford, uk
stone age
bronze age
iron age
oil age
sewer age, time to clean up our act
willihudso, retfoed, england
I've done some research on this pertaining to a book and while the degrees of pessimism vary widely there's not a lot, even taking into account nuclear power, on the optimistic side.
I see us surviving but it will tear the fabric of society apart because the cost of transportation of goods is almost entirely borne by oil which means the decentralization of production that is the hallmark of open trade will become much more expensive.
Rome may have been built by the sword but it was maintained by roadways.
Those who oppose globalization may find their wishes granted in ways they had not forseen. In the UK you can think about greenhouses and microbreweries I suppose . But it is possible to solve if the number of regional conflicts can be minimized.
glenn schaefer, holbrook , USA
countries like the uk and australia will have to build more nuclear power stations and construct oil from coal plants like those developed by sasol (south africa).
the large coal reserves should buy some time to develop alternative energy although a lot of investment will be needed to re-open uk mines.
Steam trains could be re-introduced using double boilers and clean coal technology.
steve frank, Perth, Western Australia
This is only part of the issue. Before the industrial revolution when life was sustainable the world's population was about 600 million. Industrialisation (made possible because of the presence of fossil fuels), has provided the means for mechanised agriculture, fertilisers etc. to feed an ever growing human population (now about 6000 million). If mechanised farming had not happened then population growth would not have happened.
When the oil runs out, farming will, by and large, have to return to pre-industrial methods. Similarly, food distribution over long distances will no longer be possible. Civilisation will return to pre-industrialisation tempo. If we had politicians that could face these facts human civilisation would have a fighting chance. But we don't have politicians with backbone. Even now, large numbers of people live barely having enough to survive. But that will look like Buckingham Palace tea party compared to what is in store for the human race.
RichardCr, Baden, Switzerland
"Past forecasts of oil depletion have often proved wrong, and the present forecasts are uncertain."
True, but this argument is at least as applicable to those who foresee a late peak or - bizarrely - no peak; Hubbert's predictions were universally derided and industry forecasts around the world almost always exceed reality.
Daniel, London,
It's long been apparent that it is the denuding of resources and not pollution that is THE big issue.
It's also obvious that the law of supply and demand will radically change consumption patterns.
The current obsession with 'global warming' and tackling CO2 emissions is therefore idiotic.
Nothing that we do politically will stem the rapid depletion of carbon fuel resources, so the prospective impact of CO2 omissions will be the same regardless of scenario.
The problem if we don't develop nuclear fusion is how we manage obligatory human population reductions.
Even if we do develop nuclear fusion, several other ceilings on carrying capacity will be hit so we will still be faced with having no option but to manage global population reduction.
Result: very big wars.
Population is and always has been the ultimate problem, which underlies the issue of resources.
steve moxon, sheffield,
Google "MYT Engine" for one option. Why are inventions like this not being touted if crisis is on the horizon? There are many alternatives to oil power and have been for years but they just don't seem to be exploited as they should.
We have known for decades that oil supplies will deplete and pollution from fossil fuels is choking our atmosphere. But still the drive for profit and power pushes any other issues to the background. Look at the Times article on the impact of corn supplies by ethanol. We will sway from one crisis to the next based on 'oil' of one form or another.
We have seen in our lifetime wars started over access to oil and blamed on religious extremists. We are being led by greedy individuals lining their pockets at our expense. They always have but this is now on a global scale. Is this what we really want our children to inherit?
Ian, London, UK
About time someone from a respectable media outlet had the courage to do a story that begins the tell the truth.
jeremiah, springfield, USA / MO
The world runs on a hydrocarbon based economy
and it seems that no one is really doing anything to change that. There are perilous times ahead of economic upheavel and political instability as people fight over diminishing supplies
Bruce L. Northwood, Washington, D.C., USA
Oil and gas are much more than just electricity. Both are key to our food production and distribution system. Oil is key to the transport system, which runs (more than 90% on liquid fuels). There is NO QUICK FIX that will allow us to replace what we currently get from oil.
The next decades will be very difficult: high unemployement and inflation; social strife; there's a lot more scope for a global war. The divisions between rich and poor will grow further.
Although there's nothing we can do as ordinary individuals to influence the bigger picture, on an individual level we can do much to prepare for the coming energy descent.
1 get out of debt
2 do your own research - find out why fossil fuels matter, that they don't 'run out', they peak, then decline
3 accept the reality rather than looking around for inplausible fixes
4 reduce your energy use (transport, electricity, gas, FOOD)
5 learn new skills - grow food if you can, look at your skill set
Adam, London, UK
I agree I agree I 've been teaching this point for a few years now last time in Saudi. There one of my students whose father worked in the oil biz had told her there were no worries but I told her people have not been factoring India and China's vast populations growth (India morethan china)
The demography is such that these aspirant populations - who do want to have a higher livng standard and better material wealth are going to make demands far outstrippong the rest of the more developed world.
Janet, Kuwait,
First, we have to arrest and reverse the explosion in our numbers: if we don't, nature or human nature - global warming or global war - will do it for us, even more nastily.
Then, we must achieve fusion power: nothing else matches the scale of the approaching problem. The most promising approach is helium3/deuterium - only the closest He3 is the moon's regolith (surface layers) - which in turn necessitates an economic bulk Moon/Earth transport system. Incredibly but truly, this may be achieveable, using already-existing elements related to the Space Elevator concept.
Noel Falconer, COUIZA, France
It's still amazing though that, even though this is a story in national newspaper, the issue of peak oil is never the top story of any leading news broadcaster. The BBC's leading article of today, for example, is that our bins are going to be collected every fortnight. Peak oil is still being treated almost like a wacky conspiracy theory, so if the crunch is coming soon (or here already) and it's still not a top story with our news media, what hope do we have?
Chris, London, UK
Very honest and straight analisys. Our President Chávez, who recently visited Russia, Bielorussia and Iran, must probably did talk about the situation described above, in the article, with the leaders of those friendly countries. Venezuela that has being, historically, a "reliable supplier", particularly, to the United States of America, is ready to reach agreements with world oil companies but in the frame and respect of our venezuelan´s laws and respect for our voted political system. We really know our responsabilties with the rest of the countries, particularly, with our neighbours.
Miguel Angel del Pozo, Caracas, Venezuela
This will make faster the popularizing uses of oil substitutes. More the shortages better inventions for oil substitutes.
Eventually, the losers will be current oil producers. This process has happened earlier and will happen faster in future!
Regards,
Krishna R. Kumar, Udupi, India
good, maybe now we can take the billions spent in defence
and put it into education, research, science and exploration
where we have a greater chance of "discoverin" oil
John, Liverpool,
What a great article. Well, I'm glad my old diesel VW Golf does 60mpg when driven carefully, and I've got a bicycle for shorter journeys. Hopefully oil will last just long enough for the government to bring on-line the hundreds of nuclear reactors we will need to recharge the tens of millions of electric cars, vans, trucks and buses in which we will no-doubt all be driving around the UK in 20 years time. If we haven't started building these power stations, I suppose we could buy ourselves a few extra years by invading some middle-eastern country and attempting to steal all their oil - or has that been tried?
Michael, Brighton, England
Funny that there is no mention of climate change or
dependency on a politically unstable region. The transition will be painful, but if it does reduce greenhouse gases (NOT a govt. invention, Dick of Aberdeenshire) and make the EU and US more energy autonomous, that can't be all bad. In so many regions, oil has been a curse, preventing the development of human resouces.
Pablo, Edinburgh, Scotland
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
Next