When you watch the video, recall how the Greens argue against economic growth, because they say its rob the world of resources. They argue for greater income equality, such as the world had 200 years ago.
You could overlay oil production over that general income curve (an economy needs energy).
The Greens equality campaign has a simple rule of thumb that if you increase equality all sorts of social statistics improve. What they don’t discuss is why. I can see how (as in a small community) a society with a greater propensity to look out for neighbours this would be true. Some countries pay executives a fraction of what others do (Japan) and that is part of the ethos. The Greens however will want freeloaders to get a free ride and ignore moral hazzard. I note on Metirias link (on Frogblog) citing a large body of evidence the link to reduced teenage pregnancy which states:
“One and a quarter million teenagers become pregnant each year in the rich OECD countries and about three quarters of a million go on to become teenage mothers. The differences in teen birth rates between countries are striking. In the USA the teenage birth rate is 52.1 per 1000 women aged 15-19, more than ten times higher than Japan, which has a rate of 4.6.
Babies born to teenage mothers are more likely to have low birth weight, to be born prematurely, to be at higher risk of dying in infancy and, as they grow up, to be at greater risk of educational failure, juvenile crime and becoming teenage parents themselves. Girls who give birth as teenagers are more likely to be poor and uneducated. Teenage motherhood is part of the inter-generational cycle of deprivation and social exclusion. ”
The Greens seem to be saying (again) that the poor are blameless but to take crime as an example, if you look at a more equal society you may see less stratification in housing. The bad guys will still be there but decent people will scattered amongst them.
The Japanese also have pride and lack a huge underclass that perpetuates the poverty cycle.In the US huge sums are spent on education but thereare huge numbers who simply dont want to get ahead. They like the greens have to blame some one else for their problems.
What would be interesting is to see how taxes were defined to take care of the Welfare Dependant over the last 200 years.
I guess some just had to work to live, instead of becoming a Socialist Bleeder. Then those that worked hard became wealthier.
But then slowly got taxed more and more to shut up the fucking bleeding heart coqsuckers.
Holiday today, but who paid for it? I fucking did because I did not work. The Employer pays a wage including stats, but it is all in 1 years income, so every day I do not work I do not earn.
Hmmm, I’m wondering how long till India’s and China’s growth do put a strain on the world’s resources DPF… I don’t think innovation, IT, recycling and alternate energy can fill the gap declining resources and environmental degredation are likely to pose over the next 50 years…
Something is going to change drastically – NZ needs to be ready for it…
I don’t think innovation, IT, recycling and alternate energy can fill the gap declining resources and environmental degredation are likely to pose over the next 50 years…
I don’t buy that. For 1000’s of years mankind has pushed the limits of then-know resources in terms of then-current demand and possible next-step innovations/substitutions. We adapt, we change… and we’re still here. More of us, healthier, and with higher standards of living. Those who cry “peak this”, or “peak that” devalue the proven ability of mankind to triumph over adversity… making them part of the problem rather than part of the solution.
I’m a student of human history Krazykiwi so I appreciate the ingenuity of humanity but I also understand the power of oil and the scale we are using it currently… We really have no idea when or how bad peak oil may be…
I once heard somebody put the same position to a former oil executive trying to warn people about oil depletion, the questioner said, “JFK said let go to the moon within 10 years and we did – we can overcome massive problems when we need to”, the oil executive replied, “If JFK had said lets have a colony of 100,000 people on Pluto within 10 years do you think we could have done it? That is the scale of the problem”…
The fact of the matter is I don’t know how bad the problem will be or even if it will be a problem (Y2K anyone) but to dismiss what might be the biggest problem of our lifetimes out of hand is irresponsible at best…
@Jeremy Harris – the very notion of “peak anything” suggests a sudden depletion without substitute. In terms of “Peak Oil” as supply lessens price increase. Increased price makes further (a) exploration, and previously non-economic extraction possible and (b) facilitates more alt energy source research, and helps alt energy adoption to become more economic.
Far from dismissing this issue, I believe it’s being addressed millions of times every day across the world. Supply, price and alternatives are being constantly reviewed and re-prioritised. The only thing that screws this up are governments intervening and creating politically-inspired distortions. We should be more concerned about those distortions than any alarmist claim that it’s all running out.
@Krazykiwi, certainly oil isn’t running out anytime soon and there is still plenty left to be found that isn’t the problem with production peaking, it is a question of de-linking oil use growth and GDP growth… I think you discount the just how powerful, abundant and cheap energy has been so far…
@Sonny that is quite similar to the technology being developed by Iogen, in fact Iogen are currently building a $500 million dollar plant in Sasketchewan… However if you add up the land not currently being used for forestry, cities and agriculture, bio-fuel will only ever replace 25% of our current oil use and cost us trillions and decades to implement…
Jeremy Harris, then I hope you appreciate the irony that the mad ETS will force scarce oil/gas to be used to generate electricity in preference to cheap and abundant coal thus precipitating future shortages of suitable fuel for transport.
The ETS is crazy in my humble opinion for the simple fact that we in the west use much less energy to make products (in general) than the third world and that no one else is coming along…
If we were going to do it right, the West would implement a carbon tax on products and tariffs on any country that didn’t also… That would benefit our economy, for example the US can smelt a ton of steel using 2/3 the carbon as a Chinese mill… TEQs could also work…
More pathetic anti-Greens campaigning. You do realize none of your readers are going to vote for them anyway?
You are the classic NIMBY when it comes to the prospect of mining Great Barrier Island, then you take every opportunity to cover with shit the only political party providing environmental pressure in the house. Seriously, WTF?
“to dismiss what might be the biggest problem of our lifetimes out of hand is irresponsible at best…”
To overreact to any ‘threat’ simply because it ‘might’ be real can be just as irresponsible or moreso, depending on the cost of the ‘remedy’.
We know socialists will cry wolf about every conceivable threat, and in view of the spectacular failure of most of these threats to materialise it seems reasonable that our default position should be scepticism.
There’s a certain irony in discussing peak oil at a time when the world’s most talked-about oil is not so much running out as spewing out.
As to the future, I think we should be mindful of a new trend that will run counter to the trend of the last 200 years: depopulation. This is bound to reduce the pressure for energy etc. in the coming century.
^^^ Bahahaha – the top has blown off ONE OIL WELL (all oil that would have been refined and burned in short order anyway) with catastrophic results, therefore suddenly the whole crazy notion that the oil reserves will run out is clearly false. Impressive reasoning.
Idiot market-worshippers like you are the reason we need environmentalist voting power in government. It is reassuring that a hell of a lot more NZers see the value in that than voting for the Rodney & the Rich Pricks, maybe you hadn’t noticed…?
The unimpressive reasoning is yours RRM. Your comment is yet another example of the over-emotive exaggerating that I was alluding to.
I did not say the notion that oil will run out is crazy or false. I said the people who make and support such claims have a very poor record of being right, and therefore it makes sense to assume, at least in the first instance, that they’re probably wrong.
They might, of course, be right, but we should certainly not panic until they can produce something less emotive and closer to proof beyond reasonable doubt.
The whole climate scam has escalated into a costly joke because far too many people who should have known better were sucked in by the apparent plausibility of scientists who turned out to have been paid to exaggerate for political reasons.
As a result, we’d be unwise to take scientific statements at face value ever again – which may be a healthy thing.
(And that includes the statements of scientists and engineers who work for BP.)
I’m glad you’re reassured by NZers. I’m not particularly, given that 20-50,000 of them just marched to remain poor.
Amazing how China has progressed, and how progress only began in 1949/50 once the communists had thrown out the foreign imperialists and united the land.
And it shows how China actually went backwards under foreign imperialism in the 19th century and early 20th. The greedy Western powers, Britain at the head of the pack plundered and drained China of wealth right up to the time of the establishment of socialist China.
Comparing China’s progress against India’s would seem to argue against western style democracy for developing countries.
By 1976, the time of Mao’s death, China’s life expectancy was already 10 years higher than that of India’s at the same time, and it was higher than what India’s is now.