Dick Smith's Wilberforce Award - Endless Growth is Not Sustainable



Dick Smith is a famous Australian, an entrepreneur, aviator and well regarded 'good guy' who was honoured with the 'Australian of the Year' award in 1986. Until recently, he was not prominent in the environmental movement or the sustainability debate. But over the last year he appears to have had an 'epiphany' and is now running a crusade on 'the population debate' and slowly (not too fast to scare anyone) linking the dots with the consumption and availability of fossil fuels. He has vigorously pushed the population debate in Australia over the last six months, under the banner of "Dick Smith's Population Puzzle". His new documentary is available to watch online for another week.

Now, he has launched the 'Wilberforce Award', a prize for a young person under 30 anywhere in the world who gets publicity and raises awareness of the fact (old news to many here) that 'endless growth is not sustainable'. The prize.. ONE MILLION (Australian) DOLLARS.

Dick Smith’s Wilberforce Award

It has become obvious to me that my generation has over exploited our wonderful world - and it’s younger people who will pay the price. Like many people my age, I’ve benefited from a long period of constant economic and population growth - we are addicted to it. But sooner or later this consumption growth will have an end. We appear to be already bumping against the limits of what our planet can sustain and the evidence is everywhere to see.

Right now I believe we could be sleepwalking to catastrophe because we are failing to both acknowledge that there are limits to growth in a finite world and to prepare for a more sustainable way of organising our economy.

In the 19th Century, empires were built on the labour of slaves, and it was believed economies would collapse if slavery was abolished. But brave people like William Wilberforce fought to end the slave trade - and economies still flourished. We need brave people like Wilberforce today, and I want to encourage a new generation of clear-thinking and inspiring young leaders.

So today I am announcing Dick Smith’s Wilberforce Award – $1 million to go to a young person under 30 who can impress me by becoming famous through his or her ability to show leadership in communicating an alternative to our population and consumption growth obsessed economy. I will be looking for candidates whose actions over the next year show that they have what it takes to be among the next generation of leaders our incredible planet so badly needs.

Candidates will need to have a firm belief that we can have a viable and strong world economy that is no longer obsessed with growth for its own sake, but instead encourages both a stable population and sustainable consumption of energy and resources. They must be able to communicate that we cannot continue to squander the resources that will be needed by future generations, and they must also be able to communicate a plan that offers an alternative to our growth addiction.

Like the Nobel Prize, you will not apply for the Wilberforce Award. Over the next twelve months I will be following the media throughout the world to see who is the most outstanding individual in not only making a significant contribution to this important issue, but who also becomes famous through his or her contribution to the debate.

One year from now I will announce the winner of the $1 Million Wilberforce Award. The Award will go towards advancing the momentum the winner will have already achieved.

Dick Smith
11 August 2010

Too bad I'm over 30 :-)

Tony Abbott, leader of the opposition and still with a fighting chance of winning the Australian election on Saturday, is definitely not in the running for this prize (and not just cause he's over 30).

From the election campaign trail..

QUESTION: Hello Mr Abbott and I’m a Commonwealth public servant, hopefully not one to be affected by the loss of 12,000 jobs you just mentioned, but back to my question. I know you’re not a believer human induced climate change, but could I test you on peak oil? Do you acknowledge that the world is facing a future of oil depletion and if so, how would you begin to prepare Australia for the major threat this poses to the way we live our lives?

TONY ABBOTT: Ok, well, you know, the interesting thing about oil reserves is that they’re always being expanded. I mean, at any one time, people think we have say 20 or 30 years of oil reserves. 20 or 30 years later, people still think we have 20, 30, 40 or 50 years of oil reserves, as the case may be and the reason for that is because as the technology changes, more reserves become accessible, and as the price changes, reserves that weren’t really accessible become more accessible. So, look, I know about the concept of peak oil. I don’t claim to be the world’s greatest expert in it, but I’m sceptical as to its value as a tool for policy makers because at the right price, we’ve got a lot more reserves than we currently think. With better technology, we’ve got a lot more reserves than we currently think.

http://australianconservative.com/2010/08/tony-abbott-at-the-brisbane-pe...

Not exactly the ideal candidate for Prime Minister wouldn't you say? And definitely don't give him a million dollars!

Dick Smith is a late but welcome convert to the stable population cause in Australia.I believe one of his daughters had something to do with it.

As for Abbott,a blast from the past for sure although he has said that he will reduce the current insane level of immigration into Australia.His opponent in the race for PM,Gillard,is scarcely any more rational.She made a vague statement on restricting immigration then back pedalled next day.
She proposes a citizens assembly to come up with some sort of concensus on what to about climate change.Just another excuse to do nothing.

The fact is that both Liberal and Labor are in the pockets of big mining and big business - the Boosters Club.A sad state of affairs but at least this campaign has provided me with many a (cynical)laugh.

Abbott is something of an anti-pick as a leader: rejects the idea of manmade climate change, doesn't understand the internet, religious godsquad 'mad monk', goes around in budgie smugglers, financially inept, "threatened" by homosexuality, far right winger, anti-migration, reactive and off-the-hoof policies, ..... and now rejects geological limits to oil production.

There really ought to be minimum standards for standing for office.

Globally.

There really ought to be minimum standards for standing for office.

That would have to be pretty minimum to allow the majority of those in political office to remain in work. Any reasonable standard would empty the political halls. Budgie smugglers, sheesh, can I get my eyeballs scrubbed?

NAOM

I am voting Green for two reasons. They understand Peak Oil and they acknowledge climate change.
The rest of their policies are irrelevant window dressing.

I detect an undercurrent in my work place. Someone tried to mock Bob Brown, but he was met with thoughtful silence.

I have already voted for The Pixies (Greens) - in both the House of Reps and the Senate (I'm working on the election on election day). I think they are the only party with half a realistic view of the real world.

The rest of their policies are irrelevant window dressing.

I disagree with that - there is no doubt that they do have some more radical policies in the social and economic arena that probably cost them votes and serious respect, but nevertheless, the vast majority of their "whole package" is consistent with their core policies, and a necessary part of the social and economic upheavals that are required.

This Public Servant : Tony Abbott exchange underlines why 'Peak Oil' represents a dumb question.
[Dick Smith is smart enough to avoid using the term]

Tony Abbott is not strictly wrong, as there have been many cries of 'Peak Oil' in the past, but you can see how asking the wrong question, shifts the debate away from 'Finite Oil', or 'Affordable Oil', which is the real issue.

In a move away from Oil dependence, you go after the low hanging fruit first, and displace the easiest usages, which buys valuable time to find replacements for the harder usages.
A bonus, is most displacements come with CO2 reductions.

Actually, he is halfway to understanding the concept of "affordable oil".

I’m sceptical as to its value as a tool for policy makers because at the right price, we’ve got a lot more reserves than we currently think.

He just doesn't take the next step, to realise that "the right price" may be too much. I mean, at some point we reach a limit, whether it be $150/bbl, $1,500/bbl, or whatever. At some point it becomes just too expensive for us.

I don't think a wealthy man, most of whose housing, heating, cooling, lighting and transportation is supplied to him free of charge, is best-placed to understand issues of affordability of energy.

Tony Abbott also says global warming stopped in 1998 yet he could be Prime Minister this time next week.

Contrast Dick Smith with other captains of industry who say Australia must maintain 2% immigration or risk ruin. Geez Australia's main river gets sucked dry before it even makes it out to sea. Coincidentally Tony Abbott will reduce not increase taxes on Australia's wealthy mining industry. Note BHP Billiton's takeover bid for Canada's Potash company is predicated on the world having less arable land and more mouths to feed.

Some say big business will even accept a CO2 pricing plan just to have some certainty into the future. It seems the big end of town will accept continued growth if it happens if not they'll bunker down.

I nominate Ms.X, the Monsanto geneticist who will combine progesterone elements with the most prolific GMO crop or anti-fertilizer...

But brave people like William Wilberforce fought to end the slave trade - and economies still flourished.

This is a very quaint Anglo Saxon (?) view of the world. Our attention switched to trading energy slaves - gearing up by a factor of over 1000. Source of salves stayed the same - "overseas".

So are these ozzie years? 1 ozzie year = 2 imperial years - I may qualify?

Euan,when you are off down in the garden playing with the pixies and the fairies in the company of our fearless leaders you don't bother to count years,ozzie or imperial. I don't put Dick Smith in that class.His choice of words may be quaint(in your view)but his intention is honourable and genuine.
I'm not sure whether I could say the same about your comment.

Really having a dig at Wilberforce here - and not necessarily him, but society's view of what happened. The notion that slavery was abolished. The OECD plunders the develping world for resources and cheap labour on a scale now never seen before.

I don't know who Dick Smith is, but I'm sure his intentions are sound. So how'd you know I'm down the garden playing with pixies?

One term for the slavery that still exists is wage slavery - wiki has a section on it that covers many aspects http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wage_slavery
In the US what we don't see doesn't exist, and thus the virtual slaves who make many of the things we buy are non-existent to us.

In fact for the "owners" this often works better than actual slavery.

Of course actual slavery still goes on, with countless kids sold into slavery for sex. Also young children capture for use as soldiers.

Wiki has a section on current slavery at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery#Contemporary_slavery
This stands out "According to researcher Siddharth Kara, the profits generated worldwide by all forms of slavery in 2007 was $91.2 billion. That is second only to drug trafficking in terms of global, criminal, illicit enterprises. "

Wage slavery will have to move closer to home as the cost of transporting their services becomes too much or unavailable. The people of the OECD nations will have to get used to low wages and high food costs. But then what happens to the other half of the worlds population, surviving on 2.5 dollars a day, who then have no work?

The myth of living on $2.50 per day is that the informal economy delivers much more for third world people than is ever acknowledged. Just has the work done in private homes is not counted as part of GDP in the West, it is alos not recorded in poor countries either but it is of much more critical importance. When the poor nations have no choice but to farm or starve because there is no longer fossil fule subsidised food flooding their markets, they will have a struggle but will ultimately become far more resilient, Cuban style. Ultimately, the end of cheap oil will be an emancipation for many poor countries, depite the harsh realities of the initial shocks. Being freed from the shoe factory will concentrate the minds of these wage slaves on new wasy to get food.

Termoil, from what the World Bank says about how these figures are compiled they use both income and consumption in some measure. (see below) I think they are well aware of the informal economy and also aware that some people have absolutely no income in $ but rather resort to trade. So by looking at consumption as well as income they are adjusting for the informal economy. Further they adjust for the fact that food and other resources may be less expensive in some countries. Unless you can show some source that shows otherwise I think it is clear that the $2 a day level that about 1/2 the world lives at is a fairly accurate assessment of how poor they are.

Once freed from the shoe factory they will find the land they might farm either bought up by foreign countries (quite a few are buying land in Africa as they anticipate food shortages) or ruined by Western type agriculture. They will find the wells dry as well. Cuba was a unique situation that will not be repeated in most places.

Measuring poverty at the country level
A common method used to measure poverty is based on incomes or consumption levels. A person is considered poor if his or her consumption or income level falls below some minimum level necessary to meet basic needs. This minimum level is usually called the "poverty line". What is necessary to satisfy basic needs varies across time and societies. Therefore, poverty lines vary in time and place, and each country uses lines which are appropriate to its level of development, societal norms and values.
Information on consumption and income is obtained through sample surveys, with which households are asked to answer detailed questions on their spending habits and sources of income. Such surveys are conducted more or less regularly in most countries. These sample survey data collection methods are increasingly being complemented by participatory methods, where people are asked what their basic needs are and what poverty means for them. Interestingly, new research shows a high degree of concordance between poverty lines based on objective and subjective assessments of needs.
Measuring poverty at the global level
When estimating poverty worldwide, the same reference poverty line has to be used, and expressed in a common unit across countries. Therefore, for the purpose of global aggregation and comparison, the World Bank uses reference lines set at $1.25 and $2 per day (2005 Purchasing Power Parity terms). Using improved price data from the latest (2005) round of the International Comparison Program, new poverty estimates released in August 2008 show that about 1.4 billion people in the developing world (one in four) were living on less than $1.25 a day in 2005, down from 1.9 billion (one in two) in 1981. The new international poverty line of $1.25 a day at 2005 prices is the mean of the national poverty lines for the 10-20 poorest countries of the world. While the revised estimate is significantly higher than earlier estimates of less than a billion people living under $1 a day in 1993 prices, the developing world as a whole remains on track to meet the first Millennium Development Goal to halve extreme poverty from its 1990 levels by 2015. However, poverty is more pervasive than earlier estimated, and efforts to fight it will have to be redoubled, especially in Sub-Saharan Africa. Also, lags in survey data availability mean that the new estimates do not yet reflect the potentially large impact on poor people of rising food and fuel prices since 2005.

More detail at the link
http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/TOPICS/EXTPOVERTY/0,,contentMDK...

Whatever the true level of income is in the third world where people are supposed to be subsisting on two or three dollars or less per day, it's far far higher than the purchase value of two or three bucks here in the US.

Hence these figures are misleading in the extreme.

At American farm level wholesale prices, I could just about live on two bucks a day's worth of the cheapest sorts of food,enjoying a little variety but only a very little, leaving nothing for distribution or packaging or fuel or preparation or anything else such as a pair of sandals made from an old tire or a tin or mud hovel which no matter how humble has some value on a day to day basis.

As a matter of fact such a pair of sandals is functionally worth quite as much as a two hundred dollar pair of Nikes if the weather is warm;they are worth even more if you must walk on broken glass, lumber with protruding nails, or other such debris-I myself have had a nail get me thru a sneaker.

I'm not trying to minimize the hardships of such a life.

But if a person in Bangladesh does not starve, then to make an honest comparison in dollars to the US, his diet would have to be valued at the American cost of purchasing that same diet;and cabbage is sixty cents here in cabbage country in cabbage season;dried beans are around 75 cents to a dollar.Whatever else he consumes would have to be priced accordingly, including a little fuel for cooking and so forth.

If he burns gathered sticks and I burn electricity to cook my dinner, the sticks must be valued at some significant fraction of the cost of the electricity.

I surely feel sorry for people in such circumstances but there is not much I can do about thier poverty.

Such an intellectually honest accounting would still be a devestating indictment of third world poverty while creating a far more accurate picture of reality in the minds of people using the data.

If he burns gathered sticks and I burn electricity to cook my dinner, the sticks must be valued at some significant fraction of the cost of the electricity.

I guess you would have to see how many minutes you have to work to turn on the electricity to cook your dinner and compare it to how many hours you have to spend gathering the sticks. Some women in refuge camps have to walk several hours to get enough sticks to cook their food. They have to leave the camp as there is no wood there. On the way they risk rape or worse. Somehow I am guessing that the work you did for that electricity didn't take that long or carry that risk.

I spent some time in Haiti working in one of Mother Theresa's children's homes. It was common, despite the efforts of volunteers and nuns, for several children to die each day. In the end I decided that I no longer knew what good is. It seemed good to help babies live, but on the other hand in a country so poor and overcrowded it seemed that to help them to live was perhaps not good. Before the earthquake things had gotten so bad that the poorest of Haitians were eating mud cakes - clay salt and a bit of oil. There are Brazilians who live off of and sometimes even on the garbage dumps of the cities.

I think the $2 a day in fact is probably pretty close representation of how 1/2 the world's population lives, at least from what I saw in Haiti and what I know of the rest of the world. But I would be glad to see any proof that the figures from the World Bank are not truly representative of the status of 1/2 of our population on planet earth. You compare sandals to Nike's, try houses - compare 2,000 sq foot homes with running water and electricity to cardboard shacks I saw in Baja California some years ago.

I am not trying to tell anyone how to live or what to feel guilty about. That is up to each of us to live or feel. But I am afraid that we really in the US have no real understanding of how 3 billion people live. These numbers seem too harsh to be true, but I think from what I know and have seen that they are true. We may face such hardship ourselves before long.

Euan,I guess Wilberforce was doing his best under the conditions of the time and neither he nor society could foretell the future. Of course,the British Empire of that time,like other empires,were strongly into exploiting the "niggers" and such like and not calling it slavery.Even us whites in OZ got exploited to a remarkable degree,quite often willingly.Never mind,what is past is past.We can learn a lot from it but it should not govern our behaviour in the present.

I wasn't implying that you had a close aquaintance with pixies.They are lovely folk,no doubt,but somewhat divorced from reality,unfortunately.

Well I enjoyed Euan's wit. There is no need to get patriotic.

Yes, slavery didn't end because it was morally wrong. It ended because it was cheaper and easier to use fossil fuels to do the work rather than keep all those troublesome slaves. Same thing happened to horses, camels and other beasts of burden that needed to be fed and watered every day, even if they weren't working.

We could take the reference to Wilberforce many ways. On one hand we need to move away from our dependence on fossil fuel slaves. We also need to free ourselves from the tyranny of stuff and the wage slavey we have traded our liberty for.

Slavery was abolished in Britain by R v. Knowles, ex parte Somersett (1772), the slave trade was abolished by Act of Parliament in 1807, and slavery in the colonies was abolished in stages beginning in 1833.

This was considerably before coal-powered combine harvesters or anything of that nature.

Slavery was ended in Britain and its colonies because it was morally wrong, not because of any invisible hand of the energy market.

Candidates will need to have a firm belief that we can have a viable and strong world economy that is no longer obsessed with growth for its own sake, but instead encourages both a stable population and sustainable consumption of energy and resources.

This is very different to saying we cannot have a growing economy. Note "no longer obsessed with growth for its own sake" and "sustainable consumption". I think this is implying with higher energy consumption( as long as it is sustainable) and higher resource use( for example by having almost 100% recycling) is OK.

It seems the key is stable population. In Australia at least this issue is now back for discussion, with Julia Gillard's breaking from Kevin Rudds "Big Australia" idea( one of the few differences in policy)

But Neil,did she actually break from this particular Ruddism?.As I said above she made what seemed to be a sensible statement on Big Australia one day then backpedalled the next.I suspect that she got some adverse feedback from developer,mining business and ethnic lobbies.Can't have those people upset now,can we? And I haven't heard anything more from Gillard on the subject.

A stable population at or near the current level is the first step.As we have overshot our sustainable population by a big margin there will have to be a gradual reduction in population.In spite of the anguished screaming of the Boosters this is not something to be afraid of.The transition can be accomplished painlessly (except for the personal fortunes of a few)and the result will be a much stronger nation and a much more civil society.To do this immigration must be cut radically and silly welfare policies like the baby bonus should be abolished.

By contrast,continuing on our present road will be painful for the majority and extremely painful for everybody when the inevitable crash comes.

"To do this immigration must be cut radically"

I live in Vancouver and the wife of one of my friends, I live in their basement got offended when I lamented in a discussion that Vancouver is growing way too fast (she is an immigrant). She got really offended by this and even months later she is upset by it. Well, sorry to point out the laws of thermodynamics for you.... people really need to be educated, especially economists. It never ceases to amaze me the stupidity and / or corruptness of mainstream economists. It's like, we all learn in grade 10 what an exponential growth curve looks like but somehow economists mange to convince themselves otherwise. I wonder if those dollar bills hanging in front of them has anything to do with it....

I want to get more vocal in the Vancouver community and shoot down the developers' ridiculous plans for even more growth. I am sure I will be tarred and feathered as a racist for this.

Migration to the West can grow without the West using more resources overall. All that need happen is that the average Westerner use less.

I know, I know: we'd much rather than nasty dark-skinned people stayed poor in their poor countries consuming very little so that we can continue consuming more and more without guilt. It's so impertinent of them to want a better life.

I've got to say, I don't think your position makes a lot of sense.

In general immigrants to Australia only get there because of valuable skills and education. They are a net positive for a country, particularly when you didn't have to pay to forge those skills in the first place.

If you want a stable population (not something I necessarily think is a smart move for Australia), then you would be better advised to promote emigration of the most useless and 'negative' of your society. As it is the general rule is that it's Australia's best and brightest that jump ship and head to Europe or the US as soon as possible, for the opportunities. You need immigration to counter this 'brain drain'.

As far for how that population is organised, and the sustainability of the structures, well there is something that could be addressed profitably and still allow for much bigger populations.

Whenever I see something like "there is something that could be addressed profitably and still allow for much bigger populations" my mind always asks "Why would you want to?"

And I can never think of a single rational reason.

In the early 1990's, a renowned author (check out 'Future Eaters') and respected Australian ecologist stated that, in ecological terms, Australia could support a human population of 10 million people. That being the case, it means that Australia has been in overshoot for some time now, and explains the degradation of it's ecosystems, in particular, river systems.

Thirra
The major problem with having a mature debate on this subject is to stop the blurring of the issue with that of refugees/boat people. Unfortunately this confussion of issues is not confined to the realm of the general public. It extends to the very top of government. Following is a copy of an email I sent to Wayne Swan my local member regarding my population concerns:

"Dear Sir,

I am writing to you as a voter in the electorate in Lilley. My family and many members of my extended family are residents in this electorate. In anticipation of the upcoming election I am seeking your policy position on the subject of immigration. I and my extended family are very concerned over the current high levels of immigration into Australia. This concern is in no way driven by racism or xenophobia. It is a concern based purely on the future prosperity of Australian citizens.

Our concerns are centred around the following direct results of high immigration levels:

- Each new immigrant to the country costs the local and state governments in excess of $100,000 by way of supplementary infrastructure. The current high immigration numbers are the sole reason that despite record high levels of revenue most of our state governments and local councils are drowning in debt.
- The level of infrastructure spending created because of high immigration is translating into unacceptably high increases in council rates, power and water charges. In effect the current Australian citizens who have already paid for their infrastructure over their entire lives are being forced to pay again to support this government policy.
- Our roads and public transport are impossibly congested, our hospitals, schools and police are grossly under serviced. These are all direct results of an unacceptably high growth in population.
- Housing affordability in Australia is the worst in the developed world. Property developers are reaping the benefits of this our while young families cannot afford to own their own home.
- The importation of unskilled labour into the country simply fosters unemployment among our own low skill workforce and suppresses wages in this sector creating an underclass of working poor.
- Over the last few years Australia’s economy has become highly geared to the growth phenomenon in China. If this growth falters for any reason the Australian economy will suffer a catastrophic simultaneous drop in revenue and high unemployment. High immigration levels will seriously intensify this problem and thus represent a high risk compared to the relatively minor inconvenience that could be created through a skills shortage.
- It is inevitable that higher population will adversely impact both of the amenity of our Australian lifestyle and the environment in which we all live.

The argument that Australia needs more people to cater for the support of an aging population is simply flawed when you look at the terminal condition. If we need more people for this reason now then the same argument will hold true in 20 years when the current wave of population increase themselves make it through to retirement. If you then follow this argument through to it’s obvious conclusion, we will still be calling for an increase in population when we are all living like we are in Bangladesh.

We believe strongly that this issue above all others will be the determinant of the future prosperity of our children and grandchildren. Considering this we would like to know exactly what action you as our elected representative will take to limit immigration numbers. Please do not respond with meaningless statements of “we no longer believe in a big Australia”. We are interested what conclusive policies you will put in place."

And this is the reply I recieved:

"Dear John

Thank you for your email. Wayne has asked me to respond to your concerns.

The Prime Minister Julia Gillard has said she understands why Australians are concerned about people arriving here by boat. Federal Labor knows how important it is to keep our borders strong and that’s why Labor is determined to stop the boats even before they leave foreign ports.

The Government has initiated discussions with nearby countries to establish an overseas regional processing centre. A regional processing centre will remove once and for all the incentive for people smugglers to send boats to Australia.

Persons who arrive in Australia by boat and seek to claim asylum would be returned to be processed offshore- in a fair and proper process.

The Prime Minister has made it clear that this is a complex issue and there are no quick fixes. Labor’s goal is an effective, sustainable, regional solution for the long term that will wreck the people smuggling trade.

I would like to reiterate that there is no special treatment for refugees- they have to find work, they are expected to learn English and they have to send their kids to school like everyone else. Only those people who are found to be refugees are given our protection. Those who are not found to be refugees are sent home."

What a dope. How do they expect the general public to have a rational discussion on immigration when senior politicians don't even understand the problem.

I sent this letter to Kevin Rudd and my local member and unlike you I didn't get a responce from either.

"28 April 2010

Peak oil planning and the ETS

Dear Mr Rudd,

I am an Australian citizen, a voter and a tax payer. I am also a geologist working in the oil and gas industry and became peak oil aware around 6 years ago. As a scientist I know the world’s climate has changed over time and will continue to do so. However, I am confident that the evidence presented by the majority of the world scientific community is sufficient to deduct that anthromorphic warming due to the release of once sequestered carbon, by the burning of coal, oil and gas, is real. I am interested in understanding Australia’s planning for the inevitable decline in world hydrocarbon (oil in particular) production and how Australia plans to reduce its carbon footprint.

Having read the newspapers over the last few days, I have come to the conclusion that unfortunately my federal labor vote was wasted. I applauded the apology and ratification of Kyoto but your decision to defer the ETS is short sighted and in light of a looming election reeks of politicking. I voted for labor almost exclusively based on this platform of carbon reduction as I believed your party had the courage to address one of the most profound issues affecting humanity, that is, human induced climate change. Clearly I am a fool for believing labor promises prior to the 2007 election. I know you will say there are more pressing issues at hand, the global debt/liquidity crisis and recession clearly taking centre stage and focus. I trust though that you recognise that the GFC, hydrocarbon use and peak production of that resource are all inter-related? Reducing carbon output will inevitably occur as hydrocarbon resources are depleted but I had always assumed that an ETS or equivalent scheme was a way of weaning citizens off of their hydrocarbon dependence so the decline need not be socially and politically catastrophic.

With Greece pushing ever closer to an inevitable default and with the UK and US not far behind them (although the latter is somewhat sheltered by being the global currency) it is high time we started planning for energy descent and the related reduction in cheap credit. I am under no delusions that there are some very difficult decisions to be made but it is better, in my opinion, to plan and be proactive than reactive. As recognised by M. K. Hubbert and first presented in 1956, natural resources, unless they are renewable on a human scale, when depleted follow a bell shaped curve of production. This is not a new concept just one that the majority choose to ignore. Note that I say choose because it is exactly that, a choice. We as citizens are all complicit but those in positions of power with access to knowledge and expertise are exceptionally so particularly if it is denied and/or withheld from the public. You and your cabinet and indeed all elected members of parliament need to pull their collective heads out of the sand and face the future. It will be different, that is virtually guaranteed but we can have a way in shaping it. Unlike yourself I do not have children and if I did I would be ashamed to present them with the legacy proposed by your government. I am asking for nothing more than strong leadership and considered thoughtful and good government. Stop playing politics".

"Peak oil planning and the ETS"
- the thing to watch with ETS, is not what the Spin-Maestros claim it might do, but to look at what it actually does.

ETS is worse than useless, because it is the illusion of action.

It shuffles paper, causes huge wealth transfers, drives a pass-on-the-price reflex and ultimately results in

a) No real action in taken
b) Companies now have an excuse : 'We already gave'
c) The vacuumed money, means the necessary real action, is delayed,
because the consumer cannot afford to buy the newest low emission vehicles.(etc)
d) a Growth in the CO2 NOT covered by ETS occurs every month.

Sorry jg but that is simply not true. I make my living out of building power stations and so I am intimately familiar with the decision making processes that lead to the commitment to build a new power facility be it based on renewable or fossil fuel.

The absence of an ETS has resulted in numerous renewable energy projects that I have been involved with being put on the shelf until the issue is resolved. The absence of certainty over the ETS has also prevented the go ahead of many fossil fuel plants, even low emission gas combined cycle plants. To fill the gap (because there is a lot of money to be made out of filling the gap) there has been huge expenditure on the low capital cost (but also relatively high emission) open cycle gas fired plants.

If an ETS is set in place this misallocation of capital will cease virtually overnight.

The problem there, is not the ETS, but the policy void.
They are NOT the same thing, and should not be confused.

Yes, renewable projects should be encouraged, (especially those that displace fossil fuel imports) but ETS imposts are merely passed on, and are actually counter-productive.

In NZ, they apply ETS to Power, but that fights with the pricing system, which sets ALL price by the highest cost block, in that time slot. Thus, ETS imposts end up applying to ALL power, including the renewables (!), and windfall profits result.
Even as the renewable content climbs, instead of ETS rake-off falling, as common sense would expect, it remains high until the last-block ceases to have the impost.

ETS is a clumsy, inept tool.

Germany has this exact problem, as they now move to tax the windfall profits the Nuclear sector has enjoyed, from the other-sources higher prices.

Countries that have seen faster moves to renewables, have avoided ETS illusions, and instead used Feed in tarrif approach.
That tarrif differential should be planned to smoothly reduce over time.

The price trends are actually very good, on Solar and Wind, so such incentive schemes will not need to run for long.

jg - don't you think that is a "feature" of an ETS, rather than a "bug"? If carbon-free power stations can make so much profit because the ETS increases the price for everyone, then companies should be jumping in to build new renewable power stations to reap those profits. Conversely, coal powered power stations should be shutting down as soon as that new carbon-free generation is built.

Isn't that the whole point of an ETS?

Err, sorry to burst your bubble, but no.

Those 'old' power stations hike the price to consumers, and then they give their owners nice margins, on fully depreciated plant.

So they are in NO hurry to raise large amounts of money for NEW plant, (and remember that new plant is still only bumping into Grid Parity, it is NOT yet a lot cheaper) - why would they hurry ?

Sure, the odd token plant might get built, but there was already a LOT of investment in renewables BEFORE the ETS reflex, so there is no evidence ETS drives anything in the renewable direction.
Quite the opposite: it gives very poor new energy / $ churned.

Meanwhile, the total money drained from Consumers FAR exceeds that spent on new power, and you try to claim that's not a "Bug" ?

The problem is that consumers don't like being ripped off. Nee-classical economics is founded on the belief that equilibrium demand and supply is found at the lowest possible cost and that consumer soereignty is a paramount consideration. Any artifical intervention is going to have unintended consequences. In the case of electricity it is not contestable at the retail level, only the wholesale level and efficient coal fired produers may be able to take advantage of the differences in efficiency between the worst and best performers. Perhaps a direct caron tax may be a better option as it can be levied on output and credited to sequesters, leaving the energy component to compete agaisnt renewables.

Hi Sharon,

If I may offer a couple of constructive comments on your letter, it may help expalin why you did not recieve a reply.

1. Lecturing them indicates that you have already made up your mind so they won't waste time responding.
2. You have raised several issues, peak oil, climate change, GFC, ETS which makes it difficult for their silo mentality to handle. Better to write one letter on each of these.
3. You didin't ask for anything in particualr. Eg, ask your local member what their party is doing about responding to the Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Committee
Inquiry into Australia's future oil supply and alternative transport fuels
. Or ask for an appointment to see them to discuss their response to that inquiry.
4. A letter on paper carries more weight than an email and handwriting is even more impressive. Send a copy of the letter to both their local office and their parliamentary office as this force the staff to discuss the letter which increase the chances of it being mentioned to your MP rather than just being dumped in the inbox along with the thousands of other diatribe letters they get.

And then watch this six minute video.

This is very different to saying we cannot have a growing economy. Note "no longer obsessed with growth for its own sake" and "sustainable consumption". I think this is implying with higher energy consumption( as long as it is sustainable) and higher resource use( for example by having almost 100% recycling) is OK.

Well, sustainable consumption of resources certainly implies no growth. It's impossible, long term, to grow an economy without consuming more resources.

Good grief! Smith should keep his money in his pocket. He's misguided and wishful.

Candidates will need to have a firm belief that we can have a viable and strong world economy that is no longer obsessed with growth for its own sake, but instead encourages both a stable population and sustainable consumption of energy and resources.

'Sustainable consumption' is an oxymoron, anyone who embraces it is simply a moron.

I'd like to see someone come up with a program for a husbandry economy, one that increases the qualitative value of capital rather than simply burning it up. What happened to 'made by hand'? This was:

No matter how much you 'adjust' junk society it is still junk. The endgame is system- wide bankruptcy/insolvency. Ooops, there goes that million ...

Steve,
'Sustainable consumption' is an oxymoron, anyone who embraces it is simply a moron.
I think sustainable consumption is both possible and desirable, but unlike you I am prepared to but up arguments rather than use name calling.

Eventually sustainable consumtion is all that possible, excess consumption periods such as the last 200 (or some could even argue 10,000) yrs are not long term events.

What the Dick Smiths of this world do not as yet realise is that to focus on stability (no growth) is not enough, to even begin to mitigate the effects of the currrent overshoot we need to focus on degrowth, ie shrinkage. 40yrs ago we had a remote chance at stability, today with 6.8 billion consumers, no show.

Mastodon
I agree however there is just no way this can occur in an orderly fashion. Take a look at the effect that China's one child policy has had on their population. After 20 years their numbers are still growing.

We have no more than 50 years (probably considerably less) to get our population down to a sustainable number. While this number is dependant on the lifestyle the resulting population want to adopt it is probably around the 1-2 billion range.

There is simply no way to make this transition short of the four horsemen galloping into town.

I think sustainable consumption is both possible and desirable,


Agreed.

If we get off this planet.

Steve,you may be correct in the case of the USA.I am not going to argue with you on that score as I know nothing but what I read about your country.I am not going to be so presumptious as to offer comments and advice on your situation,especially in insulting terms.

Would you be so kind as to give us here down under the same courtesy?

Read the entire sentence not just the one phrase: "... a viable and strong world economy" puts consumption in context. This is not at the species/ecological niche or solar flux level but the box store/shopping center/new car dealership level.

Consumption is essential to the industrial cycle. Without consumption there can be no industry as the flood of goods would soon render production unprofitable. Consumption-the-word suggests the continuance of the industrial model even as it collapses under its own weight all around us.

A characteristic of what could be called Peak Oil Hypocracy is the idea that we humanoids can have our cake and eat it; the cake being all of the conveniences we enjoy today along with an astringent dollop of 'efficiency' and better batteries. Essential to the hypocracy is the religion of consumption. This makes 'sustainable' a fraud word and 'moron' is charitable.

If Smith had demanded sacrifice and conservation I would find agreement with him but he is - like Obama, Summers, Chu, Bernanke, Trichet, Gates - just another slick scoundrel. He is a politician in a political ambit making a political gesture for his own gain - to stroke his own ego. His remark is simply more greenwashing and evasions. I live close enough to both Washington DC and Wall Street to recognize the tiresome and nauseatingly familiar rationalizations.

Keep in mind, Bernie Madoof was a 'good guy' who supported many charities ...

"'Sustainable consumption' is an oxymoron"

No it's not. The Sun is continually shining down and the ecosystems of the planet crank along as a result of this, providing stuff to consume. The issue is how much of that consumption is sustainable. By contrast, "sustainable growth" is indeed an oxymoron.

I think people in general vastly underestimate how difficult it is going to be to stabilize and reverse economic growth. It is not going to be something we as a society work towards with little steps, because the entire economic model we operate under is flawed and REQUIRES perpetual growth to function. No, it will not change until the entire system comes crashing down, which may be happening fairly soon. Our leaders have been busy for the last 30 years kicking the can of reckoning further and further down the road and it can't be pushed much further, the rubber band is about to snap and the western world is on the cusp of an economic depression of a scale unprecedented in human history.

Basically, the problem is that all money is created out of debt. Money is created BY BANKS when people borrow for a loan (that money is not borrowed from somewhere else, it is literally created out of thin air by banks). This money must be serviced by interest which therefore requires an ever increasing money supply, and along with this a growing economy. Without this the whole ponzi scheme (literally it is a ponzi scheme) comes crashing down. Obviously, in the real world this growth can't continue and for the last 30 years we have simply been fueling that unsustainable economic growth by continual debt accumulation. That will soon end.

I finally managed to put all the pieces together between energy, thermodynamics, ecology, and economics, and I have written up a page on my website explaining this. I always knew there was something inherently wrong with our economic system but despite years of trying to understand it from economics textbooks etc., I finally learned about it through various blogs on the net like Chris Martenson's Crash Course, Jim Sinclair's Mineset, and the Youtube video "Money as Debt". Sorry to say it, but the future does not look good, and that is an understatement. I am seriously considering options for getting over to Hong Kong or China somehow because once they ditch their Treasury Bills and the Yuan is revalued, while the US dollar is devalued to its true worth of zero, the US will enter complete anarchy. 300 million people with literally NO MONEY! Can you imagine what Los Angeles will be like? It is frightening to think about it. What will emerge amidst the ashes? Hopefully a better economic system that does not require endless growth! I am just glad that the economic system will be crashing before the ecology does.

http://markbc.wordpress.com/thermodynamics-for-economists/

'Sustainable consumption' is an oxymoron, anyone who embraces it is simply a moron.

Perhaps you meant to say 'Sustainable growth' is an oxymoron, anyone who embraces it is simply a moron...

In any ecosystem that has been stable for long periods of time, say for example an untouched, (by humans) rain forest, there will be multiple interacting populations of organisms. For example populations of herbivores that are kept in check by predators will be seen to consume plants in a manner that is sustainable as far as the whole ecosystem is concerned. As long as feedback loops function as regulatory mechanism the system will remain stable for extended periods of time. Until such time as when external or new circumstances arise to disrupt the existing controlling feedback mechanisms that serve to maintain the overall stability of the system.

Let's say a deadly virus decimates the population of top predators and the population of herbivores explodes and in turn they start consuming the vegetation in an unsustainable manner and the entire ecosystem collapses and forest is changed into a completely new arid grassland ecosystem which no longer supports any of its former inhabitants.

Growth

In any ecosystem that has been stable for long periods of time, say for example an untouched, (by humans) rain forest, there will be multiple interacting populations of organisms.

It is all a matter of time scales. Even the tropics are modified by the glacial periods, and the movement of the continents changes environments over a longer period of time. For example, 20 million years ago temperatures were more even than they are now.

Nature abhors the steady-state.

To be clear I was using human time scales as a reference point. We have at most only about 15 thousand years of human civilizations that we know of. During that period we could say that some rain forest ecosystems were in a relatively stable status. Obviously at scales of 20 million years human influence on the ecosystem might be considered moot.

Nature abhors the steady-state.

Nature cares not one wit, one way or the other...

Stable State:

In mathematics, structural stability is a fundamental property of a dynamical system which means that the qualitative behavior of the trajectories is unaffected by C1-small perturbations. Examples of such qualitative properties are numbers of fixed points and periodic orbits (but not their periods). Unlike Lyapunov stability, which considers perturbations of initial conditions for a fixed system, structural stability deals with perturbations of the system itself. Variants of this notion apply to systems of ordinary differential equations, vector fields on smooth manifolds and flows generated by them, and diffeomorphisms.
Source Wikipedia

Dynamical State:

The dynamical system concept is a mathematical formalization for any fixed "rule" which describes the time dependence of a point's position in its ambient space. Examples include the mathematical models that describe the swinging of a clock pendulum, the flow of water in a pipe, and the number of fish each spring in a lake.

At any given time a dynamical system has a state given by a set of real numbers (a vector) which can be represented by a point in an appropriate state space (a geometrical manifold). Small changes in the state of the system correspond to small changes in the numbers. The evolution rule of the dynamical system is a fixed rule that describes what future states follow from the current state. The rule is deterministic: for a given time interval only one future state follows from the current state.
Source Wikipedia

Good on you Fred.
Keep banging away at that equation. It has got to stick eventually.

Doesn't the Kinkaku Temple just look Right?
It reminds me of the philosophy of Robert M Persig where he demonstrates that if Quality is removed from the world, the world would be different. Therefore Quality exists as an independent attribute of existence.

ZAAMM was good, but I liked Lila better.

Economies are living things, that are either vigorously expanding to take up unexploited resources, or contracting in a state of disease or decay as resources become unavailable. There is no stable state between the two.

Like a plant in the garden, periodic pruning will delay the day that the plant overgrows its ability to support itself and collapses. Elites probably used a pruning mechanism like this when population was too high by organising a good old fashioned war to thin out the numbers a bit and keep the population vigorous. The alternative was waiting for crowding and malnutrition to spark an epidemic that had the same overall effect.

The trick to maximising the vigorous expansive phases overall is to make the contraction phases as rapid and controlled as possible.

Human population will contract as the energy resources supporting it at the current level ebb away. Africa is already advanced down this path through the effects of HIV (and perhaps they will experience the relative benefit of this rebalancing later on when the rest of the world is in turmoil). The choices facing us in the next century are how population contraction will be achieved.

War, pestilence or heavy handed government intervention. Have I missed any options?

Economies are living things, that are either vigorously expanding to take up unexploited resources, or contracting in a state of disease or decay as resources become unavailable. There is no stable state between the two.

That's brilliant, but.... "In a state of decay and confusion as resources become less available"

Candidates will need to have a firm belief that we can have a viable and strong world economy that is no longer obsessed with growth for its own sake, but instead encourages both a stable population and sustainable consumption of energy and resources.

I am sorry but this does not make any sense... 'Firm belief' - what would 'firm belief' do for us? Any fool can have any kind of nonsense 'firm belief' and it looks to me that belief in 'strong world economy that is no longer obsessed with growth' is exactly such an idea without too much sense. Sustainable consumption of energy is possible only in case of low intensity economy based on the energy of Sun; not on any kind of stored energy like is the case with oil, coal etc... What does 'sustainable consumption of resources means'? Water, wood and then, what? All resources on which our economy is based (except the two mentioned) are non-renewable (all ores, minerals and most of chemical elements, especially those on which our hi-tech industry is based. And besides, where is the base for economy not based on credit? Can economy grow w.o. credit and if not, how are we going to break the circle in which credit based economy must grow in order to be able to pay for the credit???
Yes, economy not based on growth is possible and stable population is also possible. The best example of something closest to this ideal, the society and economy with lowest ecological footprint exists already and this is - Cuba. But, from our western viewpoint such a thing could hardly qualify as what D Smith would like us to end up with. He maybe is trying to avoid scaring the public with reality but daydreaming will not help us at all.

A firm belief is required for anyone to achieve anything. Many people on TOD hold firm beleifs, which may be contestable, but thet does not devalue the usefulness of holding them. Was Copernicus' firm beleif that the Earth revolved around the sun a totally useless notion? Galileo was jailed for giving voice to Copernicus's beleif and yet they were right and ushered in the age of the Enlightenment. These firm beleifs changed the world so I am puzzled why you think it is unimportant. It's critical. There are plenty of people who think quite ceratively on the problems of the world and have continually searching minds that are open to new ideas and new ways of thinking. If Dick Smith doesn't find this person, I imagine he will keep his money.

What does 'sustainable consumption of resources means'? Water, wood and then, what?

Well you answered your own question. If we have to go back to a timber based economy becasue that is all that is sustaianble, then we better work out what needs to be doen in terms of palnting more treess, training more carpenters and wood workers, and figuring out where to build the mills and how we need to transport it all. Now let me see, where did I put that firm beleif.....

Yes, firm belief is critical for any success. At the same time, lunatic asylums are full of people with 'firm beliefs' (of being Napoleons etc...). Idea of sustainable growth is exactly one of such ideas. It is a plain nonsense. With 6 - 9 billion people living on the planet, 'sustainable growth' is an idea 'beyond belief'. If Mr Smith actually considers the idea of sustainable growth with 2 billion people on Earth that is another story... But then, he should explain to everybody that he is actually talking about some post-armagedon time about which we have no clue, not to mention realistic modeling. But hey, maybe he is talking about some society in which self-replicating robots will permanently extract all needed to keep two billion (or less) of Homo Sapiens examples perfectly fed and watered? Is there realistic model of stable state high technology economy that will keep one or two billions of us alive? Or are we talking about low technology agricultural society as the only one of low enough ecological imprint that can indeed be considered 'permanent'?

Is there realistic model of stable state high technology economy that will keep one or two billions of us alive? Or are we talking about low technology agricultural society as the only one of low enough ecological imprint that can indeed be considered 'permanent'?

Tahst really the point that Dick Smith (and most of us here) are trying to find the solution for. I think you are reading inot this way beyond what the intention is, which is to assist young people who are passionate about steering humanity onto a different path than the road to self destruction we are on at the moment. He is not going to give a million bucks to some crazed lunatic that is pushing a "Final Solution" agenda. He is looking for creative people who have a better vision of the futre than just a doomster point of view, but he also doesn't want people who sugarcoat the realities and if population reduction over time is what is needed, then I think he is open to being persuaded to supporting that. How we do that without degenerating into savagery may not be possible, I don't know and neither does Dick Smith, but he, like myself, would like to see a reasonably well thought out appraoch that gets humanity safely back to numbers that are suatinable on the solar budget. The alternaitve plan if we allow nature to takes it course will be so much uglier.

If you really don't like what Dick Smith is doing then give away your own million dollars and then you can pick your favourite doomer like Jack Spirko. Theres plenty of multi-millionaires doing much more harmful things with their money.

A petition in support of a steady-state economy.

As an outsider looking in, I'm indeed puzzled by that ABC "Dick Smith's Population Puzzle" page linked up top. None of that ABC Oz looks to be searing desert, which seems strange - and while the resolution is too poor to really tell, it looks as if someone is running a harvester across the Nullarbor, which seems stranger still. Of course, it's only a harmless artsy-craftsy poster ... or is it really? ... does it in fact owe something to the delusions embodied in Big Australia politics?

I found Dick Smith's Population Puzzle to be an interesting and informative site - and it supports my POV.

Many times on TOD I've argued with folks who cite fertility rates to bolster their argument that global population is a minor issue as lower fertility rates predict declining global population. I contend that that fertility (or replacement) rates are only one factor in the global population growth prediction math. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_growth to understand what is involved in actual population growth.

Dick Smith's Population Puzzle site does a good job of laying out the fundamental factors involved in actual population growth. Stable population requires a .0% growth rate. Declining growth rate is less than zero (see Romania - http://chartsbin.com/view/xr6). Australia's growth rate is 1.2% (which indicates a growing population) and yet it's fertility rate is less than replacement rate. Of course this is due to net migration (see Smith's Populations Puzzle).

Some TOD folks like to blame immigration for the US population growth rate (around 1% which will yield over 5M around 2050). I submit that this is an ineffective argument. Migration is almost always couched in terms of "skills" needed for the economy - whether it is apple pickers or scientific researchers. It seems to me that low fertility rates in rich countries automatically leads to immigration for needed skills because the natives are not producing enough children who are sufficiently motivated to do needed work (pick apples or research cancer).

I think the US needs a population policy (the current tacit policy is to breed without restraint because it is good for business, religions, political parties, etc). I think the US cannot preach to the rest of the world about family planning until it faces the population issue inside its own borders.

The US needs an explicit population policy - which, I can only hope, is for a reduced population over time. We tend to think of China as being inferior to the US in many ways - I wonder about that.

I have to admit that my pessimism knows no bounds these days, and part of the problem is population (amongst so many others!).

The Republicans don't fund family planning, birth control, or abortion, because it satisfies their wingnut base. They also like the steady stream of Latin American workers ready to work long hours for little money.

The Democrats are slightly more enlightened when it comes to family planning, but they still like immigration and population growth because it satisfies some politically correct cultural myth about immigration to America (not to mention the fact that immigrants are mostly nonwhite), and Democrats think they will benefit with more of these voters.

Both of these parties still hold the levers of power in our country.

Much of the developed world is considerably saner. Most of East Asia and Europe has not opened its borders to mass immigration. Even Australia is debating immigration now.

In fact aside from the Anglosphere: U.S., Canada, and maybe to a lesser extent the U.K. and South Africa, I struggle to think of even one! other nation on Earth which is opening its doors to foreigners of every hue and language.

We are so miserably f-cked.

Garrett Hardin was a Republican.

--There is an organization Republicans for Choice. Contributions are welcome.

http://www.republicansforchoice.com/

U.S. population growth is entirely related to immigration, dance around it all you'd like. Immigration here isn't even skill or capital related, it's family chain migration of third world poor. There is essentially no Immigration in rich Japan or South Korea.

http://www.dallasfed.org/research/pubs/fotexas/fotexas_petersen.html
30.1% of the workforce of Texas will lack a high school education; "so much for the knowledge economy." Texas will be a dump if you extrapolate.

Russia's grain ban showcases Egypt's love of bread

Russia's temporary ban on grain exports is stirring both political and economic anxiety in Egypt, the world's largest wheat importer where half of the 80 million residents rely on subsidized bread to survive.
...
"Subsidized bread is the most important thing the government gives to the people," said Egyptian economist Mohammed Abu Pasha of investment house EFG-Hermes. "It is a very basic and sensitive issue and the government had to act quickly to reassure people. It is not about elections, it's about possible social unrest."

How you can win the award:
* Be under the age of 30.
* Believe in maintaining stable population numbers and a sustainable consumption of energy and resources that do not reduce economic growth.
* Come up with and communicate successfully about alternatives to consumption-driven economic growth.
* Get noticed in the media for campaigning on such issues.

Sustainable growth IS an oxymoron. Statement in bold is morally irresponsible and physically impossible, showing Mr Smith is, quite literally, writing cheques that his arse can't catch.

Sustainable growth IS an oxymoron.

And that is a cliche.

I've no idea whether it is true or not, but I suspect you would have to define what you meant by "growth" because for as long as we have the sun shining on dear old earth we have a situation of net energy input.

I guess all the above is merely an aside, because what I really wanted to question is whether you think Dick Smith wants to a) find somebody who can win the prize, or b) demonstrate that it can't be won.

I would have liked to see a bit of basic math in his documentary, explaining how sustained growth is compounding... Could have cited China's expansion that every seven years they need twice as much oil, coal, iron ore, whatever; then four times as much, then eight times...

Dick knows its a finite world; compounding growth is as well.

Statemnt in bold is an outright attempt to misrepresent waht Dick Smith has proposed. Nowhere has he said that economic growth had to be an essential part of the vision. Quite the opposite in fact. Perhaps you should re-read the criteria, watch the documentary and then comment.

The idea is good, but what a shame the test applied is so empty, and nebulous.

He is going to award the money to a facade.

Nowhere does he state that they have to deliver a working solution, merely posture an idea. Politicians by the shipload do that now.

MUCH smarter would have been something along the lines of an XPrize.

http://www.progressiveautoxprize.org/

This is frankly just embarrassing :

[" Candidates will need to have a firm belief that we can have a viable and strong world economy that is no longer obsessed with growth for its own sake, but instead encourages both a stable population and sustainable consumption of energy and resources. They must be able to communicate that we cannot continue to squander the resources that will be needed by future generations, and they must also be able to communicate a plan that offers an alternative to our growth addiction.

Like the Nobel Prize, you will not apply for the Wilberforce Award. Over the next twelve months I will be following the media throughout the world to see who is the most outstanding individual in not only making a significant contribution to this important issue, but who also becomes famous through his or her contribution to the debate."]

is amazing how many debates/discussions/arguments i have to see which are based on totally false premises/assumptions.

there are still massive amounts of untapped resources on the planet. just one example: nuclear energy

there is no shortage, and there will never be any shortage of fissile/fertile materials, shortages and high prices are artificially induced by government interventions in order to further their sinister agendas.

as for the world population in need of some "pruning"

take one meter diameter globe. now with a pen draw the smallest dot you can.

inside that dot you can put all the world population at a 6ppl/sqm, which is the ppl density that you can have in a moderately crowded public transport.

just to put thinks in perspective.
there is lots of space, and lots of resources. try to expand your view a little more.

Never is a very long time. You're forgetting much of the planet is uninhabitable by humans.

inside that dot you can put all the world population at a 6ppl/sqm, which is the ppl density that you can have in a moderately crowded public transport.

Reminds me a bit of The Farmer's gianmarko's Fence.

Mathematician gianmarko, Physicist, Engineer walking through a field come upon a farmer.

The farmer asks what is the best way to construct a fence that will contain his livestock (ie., most area for least perimeter). The physicist does some calculus and concludes that the best way to do this is a square fence. The engineer looks at him and laughs. "No, the best way is a circle". The physicist concedes and they start building the fence.

The mathematician gianmarko just sits there for a while and eventually stands up, puts a small piece around himself and says "I declare myself to be outside".

Earth to gianmarko, earth to gianmarko... do you read me? Over.
Earth to gianmarko, earth to gianmarko... do you read me? Over.
Earth to gianmarko, earth to gianmarko... do you read me? Over.

Earth to Space Control, I'm afraid we've lost contact with gianmarko. Out.

gianmarko remarks
is amazing how many debates/discussions/arguments i have to see which are based on totally false premises/assumptions.

The most obvious of those totally false premises/assumptions is the assumption that we need population growth!

So what if there are still massive amounts of untapped resources on the planet? The clear inference from your post is that we should not consider growth to be a problem until we have consumed them.

You are guilty of the same tired old thinking based on the same false assumption that population growth will continue to remain "good" until Darwin takes care of it for us, or hadn't you noticed that for much of the third world he already is?

Candidates will need to have a firm belief that we can have a viable and strong world economy that is no longer obsessed with growth for its own sake, but instead encourages both a stable population and sustainable consumption of energy and resources. They must be able to communicate that we cannot continue to squander the resources that will be needed by future generations, and they must also be able to communicate a plan that offers an alternative to our growth addiction.

A Price System must grow... that is the first 'Rule of the Game', along with the maxim of making a 'profit'.
Debt tokens.
Thats how you control people in a class/caste system.
Our throwback to Sumer society/Mesopotamian origin of our Price System.
That system no longer works http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4i-GfgNTteE

So the question posed here is not accounting current reality.
If you use a monetary debt system of contract society ... which we use,.. it all just spirals more out of control and we crash and burn and destroy what ever is left of the earth.
http://www.technocracytechnate.org/index.php?PHPSESSID=699d9fa70fe9df419...
No way out of that one.
So this question posed is not answerable viably using the present system.
We HAVE to move to a non market .. biophysical thermoeconomic system ... something like what was proposed in the early 1930's by the Technocracy technate design.

Today we have 'energy slaves' and the 'labor theory of value' no longer can or will work... so its over folks http://www.youtube.com/user/TBonePickensetc#p/a/u/2/I9ps5vJrIxM

Thinking that we can keep the same operating system as the past used .. now, in the era of A.I. .. robotics and high energy conversion, is like thinking that all the buggy whip factories in business in 1900-AD could or should be kept viable.

Investigate the Technocracy technate science based social design. http://www.archive.org/details/TechnocracyStudyCourseUnabridged

I'm 22, about to start my career in the next year and i'm sitting here reading how most of you have a crushed spirit on the future of the world; its downright depressing and for my generations sake I'd like the world to not fall into global turmoil. Call me ignorant, foolish, or just plain unintelligent but Smith's little prize (despite it probably going to a "facade" as JG said)will certainly do more harm than good, right? Any awareness/publicity is good publicity. $1 million is a lot of money, especially for someone right out of school. Id like to see a few young faces promoting a peak oil perspective on a world-media level.

But my question is: how might you go about raising awareness for the issues at hand? Too aggressive of a position and people get turned off, too light and no one listens.

Ive lost faith in older generations because quite frankly most do not care about a future of declining natural resources and increases in future debt and population (not including the masses at TOD). It doesn't affect them directly. So how do you motivate them? Of course, fully understanding that people are set in their ways and are stubborn.

I wont even begin to argue against points some of you had made, I dont have the years of experience, data or knowledge. Id, rather than continuing the same arguments of why its not possible, like to ask how you would present PO to the masses?

Aecter,

I'm 57 and still remember feeling like you when I was 22. Things have gotten much much worse since then. Sorry I don't have anything to say that will cheer you up or give any hope. But its not because us old farts, (at least those of us that have a clue)don't care, we care deeply but those who of us who get it are in a very small minority. BTW, You didn't mention what your chosen career is, but IMHO all careers depend on BAU and BAU is dead. You might want to look for an anti career.

I myself have always followed the road less traveled by. I have survived by being flexible and always willing to let go of everything and completely reinventing myself as necessary. I just started a small renewable energy company after losing my job a year and a half ago. I've done that many times in my life. At some point I know my time will run out.

I'd suggest if you want to make a career of anything make it a career of continuous never ending change and constant relearning. Survival is the name of the game and only those that can easily adapt survive. I have a son who will soon be in your situation as well so trust me when I say I care.

This little story might put the crux of our dilemma in a slightly clearer light...hope you can keep a sense of humor and laugh at yourself and our predicament. Good Luck!

http://www.infonegocio.com/xeron/bruno/adam.html

But my question is: how might you go about raising awareness for the issues at hand?

How about putting up a prize of, lets say $1 Million, to draw out good people and good ideas from the public.

That might work !!! It is certainly better than doing nothing.

Aecter

I'll echo previously expressed sentiment in that alot of us oldsters (55 here), were young and enthusiastic just like you, and some manage to hold onto that feeling even into their dying day (except that you begin to get achy in places you never knew you had, look-out in your mid thirties or so...).

What we have that you do not have yet, is the experience of actually living through life, people, and events and have incorporated those into our own outlooks (good or bad). These few things (actually a very long list...), have kind of a "catch 22" attached to them because you HAVE TO LIVE THROUGH THESE LIFE EXPERIENCES TO FIND OUT THAT THEY ARE MOSTLY TRUE!

Here's a couple that many have learned (or should know by now...)

People rarely learn from other peoples mistakes and experiences, this is why "History repeats itself" over and over again.

There is no magical transition between "kid one day, then mature adult the next". Doesn't happen, many people do not become "Mature Adults" ever. Come to think of it, our entire Species is nowhere near "mature" in its actions or nature, and (based on at least my own observations, MHO is that we will probably not survive long enough to do so).

If you allow yourself to take an unbiased look at ourselves, the very evolutionary processes that have allowed us to survive this long, will also lead to our own extinction, and how we might alter that basic "hardwiring" to permit our own survival I have no idea.

Some may disagree, about the "truth" of this final comment, but take a note of it anyway. WE ARE ALL "RACIST". You will see variations of this every day of your life but I've never really seen the "root cause" discussed much, so here it is... Every organism on the planet that has sensory awareness of its environment (including other creatures that might be present) at birth operates under a single survival directive. "If its like me its probably good, if it isn't like me its probably bad (and a survival threat). Those survival mechanisms lie in the oldest parts of our brains and lies at the heart of every "tribalistic" or expressed "prejudice" we have. There is a "workaround" for this, but it involves transferring the information that says "not like me, therefore bad" to the Frontal Lobes of our brains where we can hopefully make the determination that "yes, it is different, but not a threat and in fact may be good". I'm doubtful however that that back to front thought transference happens successfully most of the time...

If there are any E.T.s keeping notes on us, and they have sent Historians to detail our ultimate (self induced) extinction, I wonder if he would feel any sadness at what could have been...

Aecter

Echo of expressed sentiment in that a lot of us oldsters (55 here), were young and enthusiastic just like you ... [in] the Frontal Lobes of our brains

In the now ancient Dustin Hoffman movie, The Graduate (circa 1967, God, was it that long ago?), an old codger approaches Benjamin and offers "just one word" of advice: "Plastics".

The idea is that this "plastics" stuff, which was just emerging in the 1950's, was going to be the wave of the future and Benjie had only but to hop on that stallion and ride it up the corporate ladder to a future of unlimited potential.

Well here is this codger's one word to you (also in age of late 50's --Coo, coo, ca-choo, Mrs Robinson) :

NEUROSCIENCE

This has always been "the final frontier". We just didn't know it back then. We had our heads stuck in plastic bags.

Aecter, I'll reorder the questions a little...

I'd rather than continuing the same arguments of why its not possible, like to ask how you would present PO to the masses?

Peak oil, is something of a diversion, as it tries to define a point, on what is actually a trend. So, it is rather doomed to fail.
There have already been many 'peak-oils', and there will be more, as every time the price moves, so too do the goalposts...

A smarter name would be 'Finite Oil', or 'Affordable Oil'; instead everyone misses sight of the areas under the curves, and goes off to play 'pick the peak'.

Notice that Dick Smith has been smart & careful enough to avoid using the terms Peak Oil, and even AGW; instead focusing on the sustainable.

Call me ignorant, foolish, or just plain unintelligent but Smith's little prize (despite it probably going to a "facade" as JG said)will certainly do more harm than good, right? Any awareness/publicity is good publicity. $1 million is a lot of money, especially for someone right out of school.

You might have meant 'more good than harm' ?

I think the basic prize idea is very good, but it should NOT be awarded to posture, it should be like other prizes, where you have teams actually building something. That way, a large number are involved, and they all produce results.

But my question is: how might you go about raising awareness for the issues at hand? Too aggressive of a position and people get turned off, too light and no one listens.

You need to make it real : Here I believe the internet has vast untapped potential, as it can present the data to large numbers of people, in a way TV fails. TV delivers sound-bites, and so trends to vacuous fluff, but you can have live logging/Graphs on the internet.

I've lost faith in older generations because quite frankly most do not care about a future of declining natural resources and increases in future debt and population (not including the masses at TOD). It doesn't affect them directly. So how do you motivate them? Of course, fully understanding that people are set in their ways and are stubborn.

People are less insular than you think, but there certainly IS large inertia in corporations.

The important thing is to avoid wasted effort, and miss-directed spending, as that will kill goodwill faster than anything.
[and that's what makes ETS such an abysmal fail]

A smarter name would be 'Finite Oil'

You see that Aecter?

We old codgers don't "get it" anymore.

We were fooled in our George Jetson youths into believing that humanity was "rational" and the Singularity was just one turn of the Carousel of Progress away from our grasps.

Perhaps you young folk can detect the alliterative pattern that plainly plagues the days of our lives:

Petroleum Pitfall

First off, I'm surprised and grateful Ive gotten this many responses, so thank you. Also my apologies if I over stepped my bounds as the "new kid on the block" as well as any mistakes I made in my previous post. I did mean more good than harm.

Im curious as to how the new generations will perceive the "Finite Oil/Affordable Oil" predicament of the alliterative "Petroleum Pitfall." Each generation seems to acquire a set of tools that changes the way said generation approaches problems. Computers were one example, but for my generation, Id like to think the internet will be the driving force for a paradigm shift with today's youth (as perception and BAU seem to be reason behind abusing resources).

And as soon as I figure out where I'll be living for the next few years (graduate from school in May, so Ill be moving on from the immediate area) I will be enrolling in some sort of transition movement. I've already started poking around for a way to get a public garden in my neighborhood (space is tight in a city though so there have been set backs).

I'm glad I have the innocence of youth to blind me of whats seems to be ahead. Call me excited even, to witness how humanity will handle such a dilemma and more so for getting to participate in it. Maybe it will be hell on Earth, but hey! at least Ill get front row seats!

I'm surprised ... Ive gotten this many responses

Aecter,

Not at all surprising.
Not too many young folk ever read or comment on TOD.

It appears to be mostly the haunting grounds of many an old geezer (myself included).

So when we get a live, youngin' we pounce all over him (or her)

Part of the bliss of youth is the ability to be blind as to what comes next

It's only when you get to a certain stage of life and have amassed enough dots so that you can start connecting them that the "oh sh*t" moment comes

Perhaps the "oh sh*t" moment comes because we realize the "teacher" (or other person of claimed authority) is not older and wiser than us, but rather younger and more naive than us. The respect we used to give to "authority" now becomes disrespect and well deserved suspicion. But who's listening any way? It's just a bunch of grumbling old geezers.

Aecter,

One of the most constructive things you can do is to join or start a Transition Initiative in your community. Despite my screen name, I do not want to see global turmoil either, but I do think we are going to have to go through some sort of de-tox to purge the unsustaianble excesses from the system. I have watched over the last five years that attitudes are changing and there is much more awareness today (the Greens just doubled their representation in the Australin Parliament for example). But there is also a danger of making people too aware of teh risks without having a positive vision of a better way of life, even through the coming econmic depression. If you re able to reach out to others in your community, you'll find common ground and can raise awareness as well as work through what may be urgent action that your community needs to take to build resilience in the face of big challanges. Check out transitionnetwork.org for more info on Transition.

Take 2 people like you. Teach them. Teach them to teach 2 others. Teach them to teach 2 others to teach 2 others.

NAOM

A picture is worth at thousand words (probably a whole lot more in this case...), particularly when it comes to the horrible glimpse of reality it offers to the portion of the population that insists that unlimited growth with apparently Jesus supplied "Abiotic" oil is ordained for them (or at least "it's all OK, we get to use it up, then get a free ticket off-planet in the Rapture...).

Courtesy of the Messenger Spacecraft, 144 million miles out, here is the "petri dish" we inhabit in all its frailty...

http://messenger.jhuapl.edu/gallery/sciencePhotos/pics/CW0181616382B_RA_...

I don't think the young people will have to "pay the price" of the older generations folly. Rather if they can come to a new way of valuing things and life they might arrive at having more meaningful lives with less. I think that is the big challenge.

Overpopulation is the most pressing problem facing Australia, yet both major parties want to continue our crazy high growth rates indefinitely. We should be working to stop population growth immediately.

Most media pundits are in favor of continued growth rates too, on both the left and right. They put forward a variety of reasons, but what it comes down to is that they subconsciously recognize our economy has become addicted to it.

None of them really want to see an Australia of 50M or 100M people, and most of them seem to assume as soon as hit some figure short of that we'll magically stop growing, just like that. Yeah right, if you believe that I have a certain American bridge I'd like to sell you.

I have mentioned this to people, and most of them seem blithely unaware of the true power of exponential growth, or of how dependent our businesses and economy are on continued growth and how hard it will be to ever stop.

I don't understand how Australia could ever have a population of 50 million. Isn't the continent almost entirely a desert and semi-arid?

Th vast majority of the interior is either desert or semi arid but there are large swathes (by world standards) of arable or grazing lands. 50 million would not be hard to handle if we abandoned the suburban sprawl lifestyle and focused on having really great cities with enough density to buidl great transport networks. Asutralin agriculture already feeds 100 million people and could probably increase that again if it was economic to do so (not necesarily sustainable, but could be done.) The question of water is also quite misunderstood. We have plenty of water for urban use and there is still much efficency dividend to be gained in that sector. Water for agriculture, industry, power generation and the environment however are a different story and we have a perpetual political debate about allocation of water and how to price it. I think the population debate in Australia is important as we nee to decide waht sort of country we want to be. If a 50 million + population is inevitabel, we better start re-evealuating how we are going to live and consume with that number. If we want to keep the lifestyles we currnetly have with sprawling suburbs then we are going to have to limt the numbers.

Has something happened since 2005? Otherwise, the population pyramid has been inverting for forty years now, which points to the population stabilising in two decades and decreasing in three to four decades.

In fact, since the most populous Australian five-year age group of the pyramid contain about 750*2 thousand people, the Australian population will always be well below (1.5 million / 5 years)*80 years = 24 million. So, ChrisInns, your talk about exponential growth and 50 million or 100 million Australians has no basis whatsoever.

Some commenters have criticiized Dick Smith for his initiative and that is fair enough.
What needs to be remembered is that there has been a movement in Australia for many years trying to get some sense out of successive governments on population and the related issue of immigration.We have been battling against vested interests and a lack of interest in the population at large.

The population movement welcomes positive contributions from all comers.Dick Smith's contribution is very welcome as he does carry some weight in the sectors of TPTB who are our most powerful and stubborn opponents.Like all our problems this has to tackled at the coal face one pick stroke at a time.In my view, giving up is not an option.

It has become obvious to me that my generation has over exploited our wonderful world - and it’s younger people who will pay the price. Like many people my age, I’ve benefited from a long period of constant economic and population growth - we are addicted to it. But sooner or later this consumption growth will have an end. We appear to be already bumping against the limits of what our planet can sustain and the evidence is everywhere to see.

===>>> This is true about the over exploitation of waht we have on earth. But I think we are doing a good job to save the nature. Don't say it is effective everywhere. Howeve, more important is to raise human's awareness on their actions. We are jumping into the era of recycling and reusing which I think is very responsive to our past actions.

Here is another, topical, example of using a prize, and a very specific aim, that draws in Teams.

http://www.googlelunarxprize.org/

["The competition's $30 million purse will go to the first privately funded team to send a robot to the moon that succeeds in traveling 500 meters and transmitting images and data back to Earth."]

and MIT has the idea of hopping..

http://eetimes.com/electronics-news/4206352/With-hopping-robot--MIT-shoo...

["The MIT-Draper team, Next Giant Leap, joins 20 other teams competing for the prize."]

Certainly an Ambitious Prize !

Hi Dick,

I've just discovered your population debate website and I would like to
absolutely offer you my heartiest congratulations upon your efforts to
bring this topic to the surface of the public consciousness in Australia.

The only question I have for you right up front though Dick, is what the
bloody hell else, were you thinking about for all of those other years,
if your own statement, on your website is actually true, i.e. that you
only recently had the light bulb come on in your own head, about human
overpopulation being the root cause, of all of humanity's problems.

Anyway, that aside, you certainly can't be accused of shying away from
the thorniest of subjects Dick and I personally, sincerely and
absolutely, wish you all of the very best of luck, in your struggles
with this one, even though I personally think, that however well
intentioned, you have actually only got about a single snowflake's
chance in Hell, of seeing any sanity prevail on this topic.

As a product of the post WW-II baby boom myself Dick, my childhood was
often filled with watching grainy black and white cinema newsreel
footage and then later on, TV documentaries of the gross human
atrocities perpetrated by the Nazis in Europe, only a very few short
years, before my very own birth.

Subsequently, throughout the progression of my adult years I was also
witness via the TV newsreels, now shown in glorious gory color, to a
steady stream of yet other examples of human barbarity perpetrated by
the likes of Stalin, Mao, Pol-Pot, and the conflicts of the Balkans and
Palestine and so on and these are just the ones that actually made it
onto our lounge-room TV screens because they happened to serve the
immediate interests of our own political masters of those times, to
allow us to see them.

What we didn't get to see quite so much of, of course Dick, was the
other side of these stories, involving the Americans and their allies
profligate use of flame-throwers and the saturation fire-bombing and
indeed, atomic-bombing of civilian cities in Europe and Japan and the
use of napalm on civilians in Korea and Vietnam and their even more
horrific use of more modern and 'efficient' weapons on civilians in Iraq
and Afghanistan and I could go on and on and on Dick, but I'm sure that
you are probably getting my point by now.

So basically, I guess what I'm trying to say Dick, is that at a very
early age, I made a fully conscious decision, not, to bring any children
into this world myself, because I decided even way back then, that the
ultimate survival of the human species probably wouldn't be absolutely
dependent upon my own genes actually being 'in the pool' and that I also
didn't think that I could actually live with myself, if any of the
initially 'ego gratifying' fruits of my own loins, were subsequently
forced to actually endure a repeat, of the many horrors of humanity that
I myself, purely by the simple grace of God, only had to witness, via
flickering celluloid.

You see Dick, I'm a great believer in closely observing the many bitter
and hard won lessons of human history and I also truly believe that
"they who forget, or ignore, the lessons of history, are doomed to
repeat them".

I also firmly believe that the basic, or indeed should that perhaps be,
the 'base' nature of mankind, has never, ever, changed, right throughout
all of our human history on this planet and so Dick, I believe that if
you can manage to stick around long enough, then everything old, becomes
new again and that Dick, is what absolutely terrifies me, about the
future that lies in store for mankind.

I used to continuously wonder, that humans could be so absolutely
barbaric, until I heard recently, that scientists have now discovered
that we actually share something like 98.5 % of our DNA with the monkeys
and the great apes and they have also recently found, that chimpanzees
regularly wage aggressive war and cannibalism, amongst their own societies.

So Dick, I guess that to some extent, we can always use the excuse,
for our appalling behavior as a species, that we are just genetically
programmed to behave like animals.

If we accept that hypothesis however Dick, it raises a whole other raft
of questions about just how do you convince, persuade, or even perhaps
force, Australians indeed, humanity in general, to look further than
just the ends of their own very selfish and self-interested noses and
actually take in the big picture view of the effects of their own
unfettered, hormonally driven, rampant population growth upon our
society and indeed upon the rest of the living inhabitants of the whole
planet...?

That Dick is the 6.8 Billion plus (and growing exponentially) person
question.

Sometime back in my younger days, I think it was somewhere around the
late 60's or early 70's from memory, there was a terrible hurricane /
cyclone that had inundated Bangladesh and all of our morning newspapers
headlines screamed, in 3 inch high letters, that "1 million people had
died as a result of the flooding" along with impassioned pleas from the
UN etc. for immediate donations of food and clothing and blankets and
money to fund relief aid etc. etc.

This news had a very profound effect upon my own young and tender
sensibilities and I was thus fully determined to go along the very next
day to my local bank and actually withdraw all of my own life's savings
to that point and gladly send them all off to the Red Cross Bangladesh
relief appeal, that is, Dick, until upon rising from my bed the very
next morning and reading the newspaper headlines of that day, which
trumpeted in 3 inch high letters, that it would take just 1 year, based
upon the world's then current human birthrate, to replace every single
one, of those 1 million, men, women and children, that had perished,
just 24 hours beforehand.

I sat down at the kitchen table with my scientific calculator Dick and
did a bit of quick computation and quickly came to the realization that
by the year 2000, less than 30 years off, based upon those projected
birth rates, there would be something around 6 Billion people upon this
tiny blue planet, all then competing, for the world's finite and ever
diminishing resources.

I have to say Dick, it was at that moment, fully some 40 years ago now,
that a tiny light bulb came on in my head and I then tore up my bank's
withdrawal slip and resolved to never again, well, to at least try to,
never again, worry myself unduly, about trying to save humanity, from
itself.

As I recall, it was also somewhere around then, that I also read a book
entitled "Limits to Growth" or something like that, which was released
by the then relatively new foundation called the "Club of Rome" that
warned us all of the severe problems that would lay ahead for mankind in
the coming decades, due to the world's projected ever increasing human
birth rates.

It was also somewhere around then as I recall that the world's Western
economies suffered the first 'Arab Oil shock' that had us all lined up
at the servos in our huge (American) gas guzzlers of the day, waiting
for our very own, paltry ration of a couple of gallons, of their 'Black
liquid Gold'.

Unfortunately for me Dick, every now and then I must admit to having an
occasional relapse of the "I can save the world from itself" syndrome,
but thankfully it is usually mercifully, only a fairly brief period,
before my own logic and sanity once more, re-asserts itself.

The really, truly, frightening thing now Dick, is today's, current human
global birthrate.

Whereas, forty years ago, it took 1 year, for 1 million people to be
born, today, it takes ...SIX and a HALF...DAYS...!!!!!

What's that, I hear you you say Dick...?

You don't believe me...?

Well Dick, look up the latest UN and CIA world human birthrate figures
and do the Math yourself then...!

Waiting,

Waiting.

Waiting.

So, am I indeed, right...............?

That's OK Dick, apology accepted, no hard feelings.

Now Dick, unfortunately, I have to say that I fear that you are
absolutely wasting your own precious time and breath, in asking any of
our elected political leaders to provide you with any, solution, to this
question, because their entire, current Western economic paradigm, is
totally, predicated upon the continual expansionary growth, of
everything, including our human population.

A clear example of our political leader's own putrescent thinking can be
seen in their public mouthings of the absolutely urgent need for all of
humanity to drastically cut anthropogenic emissions of CO2, whilst, at
the very same time, they are all literally, falling over themselves in
their rude haste and scrambling, to have their very own, latest hard-hat
wearing, cheesy grinning, photo opportunities, at the opening of their
latest, 'newly approved' raft of coal mines.

Oh, and Dick, please don't fall for their glib lines of it's OK, because
we only sell "Clean Coal" here in Australia...! I think that's
probably going to be found out to be just another of their politician's
speak, "Porky-Pies" before too much longer.

I recently read a scientific paper Dick, which concluded that we are
already at the point with our human exploitation of the Earth's finite
resources, that in order to provide our own, 'first world standard of
living' to everyone else in the third world, we would actually already
require the resources of four, planet Earths.

With the predicted time frame for the onset of global "Peak Oil" just a
few, indeed now possibly even as close as just a couple of years off,
(although that time frame could possibly be extended, slightly, due to
the GFC suppressing recent world oil demand) I still have Dr Ali Morteza
Samsam Bakthiari's prophetic speech, delivered in his 2006 address to
the Australian Senate, ringing in my ears.

"It will require an absolute, act of God, to prevent war over the
world's remaining, dwindling oil reserves".

Personally Dick, I think that in spectacularly failing to impose our own
viable limits upon our burgeoning human population growth then it's
probably ultimately going to require the intervention of Gaia, to
resolve the 'insurmountable problems' of humanity and I fear, that it
won't at all be pretty, because as you probably already realize Dick,
'She' doesn't believe in taking any prisoners.

A wise person once wrote, "There are no rewards or punishments in
Nature, only consequences" and I fear that this is a lesson that
humanity is currently destined to learn, the very harshest way.

A hint, to another possible solution, of course, Dick, could be
contained in one of Albert Einstein's memorable quotes, "I don't know
exactly what weapons will be used by humanity to fight WW-III, but I
know that WW-IV, will be fought with rocks and sticks"

Just like all of the many other failed human civilizations that have
preceded ours Dick, I fear that this current one is also ultimately
doomed to fail, because of humanity's apparently eternal and ever
unchanging, unfettered stupidity and avarice. I think that the only
discernible difference is that it is already displaying all of the
warning signs that it is going to be an absolute doozy, this time around.

Either way Dick, of course, if you are 'a man of faith' you would not be
overly concerned by any of this 'temporal' human conundrum, but simply
accepting of the fact, that it is all, but a part of God's great and
mysterious plan for mankind, and take comfort in knowing that it is all
indeed, just as it is written, in the Holy Scriptures, viz:

"His coming will be to bring all things to an end. At His second coming
our Lord shall destroy this old earth and all things therein. Jesus
said, "Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass
away" (Matt.24:35). Peter stated it thusly, "But the day of the Lord
will come as a thief in the night; in which the heavens shall pass away
with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the
earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up" (2 Peter
3:10). Yea, when our Lord comes again, this old earth and all that is on
this earth both below and above shall be done away with. It shall be no
more."

Dare I say Dick, but it seems typical of mankind's flawed understanding,
that he thinks he can hope to re-create the 'Garden of Eden' here on
Earth, whilst he simultaneously, daily goes about totally trashing the
planet's finite resources, solely for his own totally selfish and ever
growing demands.

Anyway Dick, I will sign off now, by re-iterating my very best and
indeed, heart-felt wishes to you, in the pursuit of your answer to 'the
insanity of humanity' and please, please, do be sure to let me know, if
you ever do, manage to come up with it.

Best Regards,

from

JustAnotherOldFossil